Quote:
Originally Posted by wizwor
Streaming media falls down on two counts: 1) you cannot turn on the TV, watch stuff, fall asleep, wake up, and still be watching stuff, and 2) there is no local programming -- I cannot see how my teams did or what the weather will be tomorrow.
Aereo addresses both problems. It's coming to my market next month and I'm going to sample it. Aereo is supposed to stream 28 channels to my Roku and provide DVR functionality. If that works out, a lot of people will be cutting the cable.
|
Streaming channels and Aereo are both a classic example of market forces at work.
1- Cable operators have built their business around bundling and subsidies, a model when "500 channels" impressed people and carried the implied promise that "somewhere in there you'll find someting to like".
2- Cable operators pay content providers for the content based on the number of subscribers--the number of people who *might* watch--not by the number of actual viewers. That decouples actual viewing habits from the funding of the content, subsidizing niche or fading channels at the expense of popular ones.
3- Consumers have for quite a while asked for ala carte cable services where they can susbcribe to (pay for) only those channels they want. They believe that getting access to one specific channel shouldn't involve signing up for an expensive bundle of irrelevant channels. (Getting access to BBC america should require signing up for a bundle including Iranian and South African TV, ater all.)
4- Congress and the FCC periodically look at this (consumers really, really want this--loudly) but the cablecos and the niche operators always block it. Plus the megacorps that own the popular networks also own the crappy ones and they are comfortable with the status quo.
5- Digital distribution channels are the answer. Much like with ebooks, they allow content to flow around the entrenched gatekeepers and their business model. Netflix and Hulu (and iTunes, Vudu, XBL, and PSN) have established that consumers will happily pay for content they want if it lets them watch they want, whenever and however they want. (And if it lets them save even a bit of money at the end of the month.
6- We are seeing signs of progress.
Over on XBL most of the major networks have delivered labeled apps that deliver their content direct to viewers via streaming. Most are still tied to a cable contract or come with absurd limitations but some are starting to respond. A few stand out:
- The newly-released CW app offers the same day-after features as Hulu, offering up the past month worth of episodes for free on-demand viewing with no subscription fee required.
- The Univision App offers dozens of their Telenovelas (mexican soap operas) in their entirety.
- FOX, SyFy, ESPN, Telemundo, and others also offer up streaming apps but theirs are crippled with requirements or limitations that make them useless unless the broadband operator is on a white list or, worse, they only offer up trivial promotional content. That will likely change as they slowly inch away from worrying about annoying the cablecos to serving the viewers (and directly *measuring* viewership).
Most telling, the networks that own Hulu are locked up in a debate on how to better structure Hulu Plus for growth; free with ads (Disney/ABC) or ad-free subscription (FOX). Both models have their pros and cons for consumers but the debate starts with the assumption that all their content will be carried in one form or another.
Aereo may actually be doing everybody a favor because it looks like the only way the networks will be able to fight them is to either stop OTA broadcasts (unlikely. And the FCC might have something to say there.) or simply set up their own streaming services. If they can't beat them they'll have to join them.
Ala carte would be best, but there are reports of no less than *three* full streaming services that are in the works to challlenge the cablecos and the satcos; from Microsoft and Sony for their next-gen consoles, and from Intel for anybody that wants it. (And of course, Apple will then jump in with their own innovative version.)
It is taking way too long to get where we need to be, where we can subscribe to the 6-7 channels we do watch without having to pay for access to bandwidth-wasting content we don't care about. (The cablecos themselves would greatly benefit if they switched to streaming instead of wasting their bandwith simutaneously broadcasting all 500 channels over the same wire. FiOS and U-Verse both have shown how much better service they could offer if they got rid of their archaic operating model.)
The big unknown here is Intel; if they do launch their service they'll need STB partners and they could hardly find a better match than Amazon since all the other bigtime players are working on their own competing solutions.
An Amazon Prime STB with ala carte channel subscriptions (like the Kindle magazine and newspaper subscriptions) would be a clear instant winner. And the (industry) climate is getting receptive. And that kind of customer focus is right in line with Amazon's culture.
Plus, consumers very vocally want this but nobody is doing it.
There is big money in selling TV channel subscriptions at $1-5 a month so, sooner or later the markett will have its way over the desires of the old guard.
Still just rumors but it would be nice...