The cellphone has changed computing! "Google's CEO says mobile smartphones are transforming the Internet" in so many ways. For both Google and Apple, the smartphone adds a convenience in exchange for a smaller screen. I've seen it firsthand. Need a railroad schedule, its at your fingertips; need directions or GPS, just tap a few keys. And do it without being tethered to a computer screen; rather, on a device that comes with you than you going to it.
Given its compact size, the smartphone becomes a must-have accessory 24 hours a day, seven days a week. And with that number of eyeballs comes subscription revenue and advertising opportunities. Convenience, portability, internet access, knowledge. The proliferation of apps simply helps to expand the value of the device.
And so I wonder if a tablet device, too small to replace a computer, to large to fit in a pocket, will become the next must-have device. Will men start carrying manbags for their tablet, comb, and wallet? Or will the smartphone be good enough to handle the computing and reading and viewing needs of the consumer? Or will we need both! Stay tuned.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
TiVo Subscriber Losses Accelerate In 2009
I loved my Tivo! Yes past tense. As cable companies converted to all digital and scrambled each cable channel signal, my Tivo Series 2 lost its value. I thought about upgrading, especially since we had just put an HD set into the same room. But talking to the CSR at the cable company, getting a CableCARD seemed out of her vocabulary and I wasn't about to buy a Tivo till I knew they could support it. And finally, our household enjoys both DVR and VOD and I wasn't about to put both a cable DVR box and a Tivo box on the same HD TV. Hence my dilemma, my Sophie's Choice, so to speak.
But having used the cable DVR, I miss the functionality, convenience, ease, and other benefits of my Tivo. It is a superior product forced to work with its dysfunctional cousin. If only the two could play more effortlessly together. But it is that issue that primarily hurts consumers from putting a Tivo into a cable home.
One hope is that the release of their latest version solves that problem. "The company last week launched Premiere, TiVo's next generation of set-top boxes that have a 16:9 interface optimized for HD displays. RCN plans to release the TiVo Premiere as its primary DVR in the second quarter, with the ability to access content from broadband sources as well as VOD." And that is the key; to successfully market this product by simply work WITH the cable company. For Tivo, close those cable deals! Market in their newsletters, guides, triple play offers, and such. Run cross channel showing the ease of replacing a Tivo with the current box and that all functionality not only remains, but is improved. Gaining cable company partnerships and marketing alongside their messaging will grow the Tivo subscriber base!
But having used the cable DVR, I miss the functionality, convenience, ease, and other benefits of my Tivo. It is a superior product forced to work with its dysfunctional cousin. If only the two could play more effortlessly together. But it is that issue that primarily hurts consumers from putting a Tivo into a cable home.
One hope is that the release of their latest version solves that problem. "The company last week launched Premiere, TiVo's next generation of set-top boxes that have a 16:9 interface optimized for HD displays. RCN plans to release the TiVo Premiere as its primary DVR in the second quarter, with the ability to access content from broadband sources as well as VOD." And that is the key; to successfully market this product by simply work WITH the cable company. For Tivo, close those cable deals! Market in their newsletters, guides, triple play offers, and such. Run cross channel showing the ease of replacing a Tivo with the current box and that all functionality not only remains, but is improved. Gaining cable company partnerships and marketing alongside their messaging will grow the Tivo subscriber base!
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
ABC's Fight Doesn't End With Cablevision
ABC may have drawn its line in the sand when negotiating with Cablevision, but it's impact was also meant to be felt with Time Warner Cable. "Disney may repeat the maneuver if it can’t reach a deal with Time Warner Cable Inc. once their agreement ends in August, according to Wunderlich Securities LLC analyst Matthew Harrigan." And ABC isn't afraid to pull its programming off, even if a big event is possibly affected. Perhaps the notion that these problems aren't going away will be noted by the FCC before it reaches the next deadline. It is better to make changes in the direction before the gaping hole is too close to easily maneuver around. These issues need to be reconciled now by the FCC, both because of these kind of public concerns and because of the potential merger issues that an NBC Comcast combination could cause. The FCC needs to be proactive, not reactive.
Monday, March 8, 2010
ABC Cablevision Deal Struck Too Late
Approximately 13 minutes after the start of the Oscar telecast at 8:30pm ET, a crawl came across WABC that the deal with Cablevision was struck and that the signal was restored. Unfortunately for viewers, that announcement came almost three hours too late. Those that watch the awards show most likely made their plans prior to 6pm what they would do: buy an antenna, go to a friend's house, install a dish, or switch to FIOS. It is hard to imagine that Cablevision viewers were switching from their other show to WABC to see if it was back on. Can't see the Oscars; some may have left their home and gone to the movies to watch a nominated film or stayed home and rented one for the night.
And while publicly both sides will say that relationships between the two companies has returned to normal, I bet that lingering feelings remain. I would guess that one side will see it as a win-lose deal and will remember the next time. Interesting too that the FCC did not formally get involved.
And how does the repercussions of this deal affect the NBC Comcast merger plans? What happens when it is NBC's turn to negotiate with Cablevision, or FIOS? How can a deal be fairly struck when the potential NBC owner is another cable operator. I see that as a major problem, especially when it involves negotiations for a broadcast channel. And while that negotiation already occurs for cable networks, a broadcast network represents the majority of viewing across the country and should prescribe to different rules. Too much vertical ownership poses a major problem that the FCC must clearly address in the NBC Comcast merger discussion.
And while publicly both sides will say that relationships between the two companies has returned to normal, I bet that lingering feelings remain. I would guess that one side will see it as a win-lose deal and will remember the next time. Interesting too that the FCC did not formally get involved.
And how does the repercussions of this deal affect the NBC Comcast merger plans? What happens when it is NBC's turn to negotiate with Cablevision, or FIOS? How can a deal be fairly struck when the potential NBC owner is another cable operator. I see that as a major problem, especially when it involves negotiations for a broadcast channel. And while that negotiation already occurs for cable networks, a broadcast network represents the majority of viewing across the country and should prescribe to different rules. Too much vertical ownership poses a major problem that the FCC must clearly address in the NBC Comcast merger discussion.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
ABC Turned Off For Cablevision Viewers
I hope no Cablevision customer was surprised when they woke this morning to find WABC turned off. Cablevision has the leverage on access to viewers and ABC has the determination to lie down for their license fee. The result, no agreement, and ABC's only response to turn off the signal they provide to Cablevision. "Just after the stroke of midnight Sunday, 3 million Cablevision viewers in the New York area saw their televisions turn into pumpkins. At least that was the case for those subscribers' ABC channel, which went dark because of an impasse by the cable operator and broadcaster to resolve a feud over transmission fees."
The question is, who looks worse, or perhaps, does either company look better. Most likely it is a lose-lose situation; for ABC and the viewer, not Cablevision. Cablevision figures that a significant number of their customers won't drop the service; they will simply wait it out. That was the learning with the Scripps negotiation and is consistent for this current one.
Most likely, negotiations are on again today, but I personally doubt that the situation will change unless it is ABC that walks away from the edge and accepts less than what they may be asking for. It's Sunday so I doubt the FCC will do anything to push either to a quick resolution that results in a signal being turned back on. Likely, Cablevision has already given its best offer and has no intention of offering more. Who will blink first? At the end of the day, my bet is that ABC rolls over first. Whether it is today, before the Oscars begin, or after is up to ABC.
The question is, who looks worse, or perhaps, does either company look better. Most likely it is a lose-lose situation; for ABC and the viewer, not Cablevision. Cablevision figures that a significant number of their customers won't drop the service; they will simply wait it out. That was the learning with the Scripps negotiation and is consistent for this current one.
Most likely, negotiations are on again today, but I personally doubt that the situation will change unless it is ABC that walks away from the edge and accepts less than what they may be asking for. It's Sunday so I doubt the FCC will do anything to push either to a quick resolution that results in a signal being turned back on. Likely, Cablevision has already given its best offer and has no intention of offering more. Who will blink first? At the end of the day, my bet is that ABC rolls over first. Whether it is today, before the Oscars begin, or after is up to ABC.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Will FCC Get Involved in Cablevision ABC Mess
It seems Senator John Kerry remains tired of these negotiations between broadcaster and cable company. "As Chairman of the Commerce Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet, he just weighed in on Cablevision negotiations that could leave 3.1 million Cablevision customers without ABC's Oscars broadcast on Sunday. In a letter to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski Kerry urges Genachowski to push both parties to keep WABC on air during negotiations."
Is it now time for the FCC to have an opinion on all negotiations regarding broadcasters and cable companies? Should government get involved or let competition determine outcome. As there are other means to get these signals, the best advice for the consumer could just be to switch providers.
Is it now time for the FCC to have an opinion on all negotiations regarding broadcasters and cable companies? Should government get involved or let competition determine outcome. As there are other means to get these signals, the best advice for the consumer could just be to switch providers.
Tivo Building Box to Work With Cable Companies
Tru2way, cable's architecture to assure the security of its programming, has not been well received by TV manufacturers. Notice that most new TV sets come with internet connects and not Cablecard slots. Well Tivo wants to play nice in the sandbox. "TiVo Inc. (Nasdaq: TIVO) says it's building a tru2way version of its new interface for Comcast Corp. (Nasdaq: CMCSA, CMCSK) and other cable operators, but it's also pitching major MSOs on using the company's new "Premiere" boxes -- unveiled Tuesday night -- as their primary DVR for cable subscribers." Quickly please!
I hate my Motorola DVR, but I need the cable box to get on demand. The Tivo interface, search features, and other differences makes it the best DVR box out there today. And it seems Tivo is finally modifying its strategy to gain new business. "While selling DVRs remains a core part of TiVo's business, (CEO Tom) Rogers said the company remains focused on generating revenue from the software for its user interface." The sooner Tivo software is added to my DVR box, the happier I will be.
The public has no idea what a Cablecard is and the cable companies do little to promote them. Tivo boxes need a card to access all the scrambled/digital channels. Ask a CSR about them and you get confusion; go online and you get little or no information, especially on the MSOs' own websites. It remains an uphill road but I am feeling hopeful.
Lastly, what great news to hear that Dish has lost yet again in their lawsuit with Tivo. You steal, you pay the price!
Thursday, March 4, 2010
ABC and Cablevision Both Get Ugly
Remember the good old days when TV was indeed free, once you bought the antenna and connected it to your roof. Walk through the neighborhood today and most antennas are gone, replaced either by more wires into the home or dishes on the roof. The result has been a unlimited increase in content for a monthly fee. And that same fee assured that the picture was clearer, never snowy, and full of HD detail. So how much is that worth, both to the cable company providing the signal and the viewer, paying to receive it today?
I contend that broadcast signals should be carved out from the subscription equation. They are the backbone of the TV landscape and offer a "basic" choice to those that do not seek more variety. And frankly those broadcasters also own cable nets so they are receiving compensation. In fact, broadcasters once used their weight with broadcast to help force in cable channels that a cable company may have been initially unwilling to launch.
I believe too that once the FCC forced broadcasters to switch their analog feed to a digital one, they opened up a Pandora's box. It actually led to more cable subscriptions rather than try to convert an analog antenna to digital. In fact, the next signal that broadcasters should send is an IP one. Allow the viewer to receive your network through the web. It will ultimately provide TV Anywhere and gain you more viewership to increase your ad revenue. A Comcast NBC merger by the way would definitely slow down the shift into this distribution platform.
But at the moment Cablevision and ABC are fighting over money for carriage and the loser will always be the cable customer; signals dropped temporarily, monthly bills raised, all to feed the pockets of both companies. So it is possible Cablevision customers would not see the Academy Awards on Sunday night. It is also possible that a last minute stay will keep it on. But what is true is that monies will get resolved and monthly bills will rise.
I contend that broadcast signals should be carved out from the subscription equation. They are the backbone of the TV landscape and offer a "basic" choice to those that do not seek more variety. And frankly those broadcasters also own cable nets so they are receiving compensation. In fact, broadcasters once used their weight with broadcast to help force in cable channels that a cable company may have been initially unwilling to launch.
I believe too that once the FCC forced broadcasters to switch their analog feed to a digital one, they opened up a Pandora's box. It actually led to more cable subscriptions rather than try to convert an analog antenna to digital. In fact, the next signal that broadcasters should send is an IP one. Allow the viewer to receive your network through the web. It will ultimately provide TV Anywhere and gain you more viewership to increase your ad revenue. A Comcast NBC merger by the way would definitely slow down the shift into this distribution platform.
But at the moment Cablevision and ABC are fighting over money for carriage and the loser will always be the cable customer; signals dropped temporarily, monthly bills raised, all to feed the pockets of both companies. So it is possible Cablevision customers would not see the Academy Awards on Sunday night. It is also possible that a last minute stay will keep it on. But what is true is that monies will get resolved and monthly bills will rise.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
ABC Cablevision Fight To Get Nasty
The contract negotiation between ABC and Cablevision is tuning nasty. Just months ago, Fox went through this same issue with Cablevision and only last minute negotiations saved them from being pulled off the air; Scripps Networks negotiations with Cablevision went from bad to worse and customers lost these networks for a couple weeks. Now it is ABC's turn. And they seem to be following the playbook. Open letters in newspapers, websites devoted to save the channel, and Facebook friends connecting under this same type of group. And Cablevision will hold the line till the very end until 12th hour negotiations on March 7 either save the channel or drop it from availability for Cablevision customers. Ultimately a no win scenario.
"The signal for ABC’s New York station, WABC, has been retransmitted, essentially free, by Cablevision for decades, but Cablevision said Tuesday that ABC now wanted $40 million a year, or about $1 a month for each subscriber." At the same time, ABC, and its owner Disney get tons of subscription revenue from its other networks - Disney, ESPN, Family, and others. But they are cable networks and ABC is broadcast. Both offered over the air and through cable lines, but a broadcast signal nonetheless. Does it or any broadcaster deserve a fee? This speaks to the heart of the argument.
It also points out the potential problem that faces the Comcast NBC merger. A distribution platform owning a broadcaster presents many problems of fair and equitable distribution; profit before public. It is the fundamental problem that should force the FCC to not approve the merger. Just imagine what might happen when it is NBC's turn to negotiate its "carriage" on Cablevision, Cox, or one of Comcast's rivals, Verizon, AT&T, et al. And what about pursuing new distribution platforms not beholden to a cable platform, like IP. Cablevision's negotiation with ABC is simply a precursor to the bigger problems that a Comcast NBC merger represents.
"The signal for ABC’s New York station, WABC, has been retransmitted, essentially free, by Cablevision for decades, but Cablevision said Tuesday that ABC now wanted $40 million a year, or about $1 a month for each subscriber." At the same time, ABC, and its owner Disney get tons of subscription revenue from its other networks - Disney, ESPN, Family, and others. But they are cable networks and ABC is broadcast. Both offered over the air and through cable lines, but a broadcast signal nonetheless. Does it or any broadcaster deserve a fee? This speaks to the heart of the argument.
It also points out the potential problem that faces the Comcast NBC merger. A distribution platform owning a broadcaster presents many problems of fair and equitable distribution; profit before public. It is the fundamental problem that should force the FCC to not approve the merger. Just imagine what might happen when it is NBC's turn to negotiate its "carriage" on Cablevision, Cox, or one of Comcast's rivals, Verizon, AT&T, et al. And what about pursuing new distribution platforms not beholden to a cable platform, like IP. Cablevision's negotiation with ABC is simply a precursor to the bigger problems that a Comcast NBC merger represents.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
