Courts Give Tivo Another Delay With Dish

Why are the courts so backed up? How many times can a court order be affirmed and then reviewed. "The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington gave Dish a chance for a better outcome in the litigation, which it has consistently lost to TiVo." What will it take for Dish to finally pay Tivo for its DVR technology. And when will Dish and cable operators finally incorporate Tivo's DVR inside their cable box.

For now, Tivo must continue to fight Dish in a court of law and not partner with them in the entertainment landscape. And while the lawyers get rich, these two companies must spend their monies on court challenges and not on innovation and marketing. And while Dish claims that their DVR does not infringe, the courts have disagreed and told Dish to pay up. Until yesterday. And so it goes on and on.

Dish Network faces DVR shutdown, Thanks to Tivo

Tivo won the DVR and Dish must pay the fighter. "Dish Network Corp. reported a 26 percent drop in first-quarter net income as the satellite TV company stepped up promotions to reel in customers." In an even bigger move, Dish may be forced to shut down its DVRs to customers to comply with the patent infringement order. If they do, customers will be extremely unhappy. So what should Dish do? Pay the money, license Tivo, buy Tivo? Currently more appeals have been written but is this a fight of egos. Is Dish simply throwing good money after bad. Isn't it best to move forward and find a relationship with Tivo that works. ANd if they don't could another court loss kill Dish.

FCC Sees Broadband As A Regulated Utility

Should broadband access be treated as a utility? It may provide equality of content on the web, but at what cost. "The Open Internet Coalition, which includes Amazon.com Inc., Google Inc., and EBay Inc. applauded the approach because it will “preserve a level playing field for all participants,” the group wrote in a letter addressed to Genachowski today. Reclassifying Internet services could subject the cable operators to regulations including 'fair and reasonable pricing' and the filing of 'tariffs' ahead of all pricing changes, Moffett (Craig Moffett, an analyst with Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. in New York) said in a report. Moffett calls the action 'the nuclear option.'" But is it the answer.

I propose pushing more competition as a goal to assure equal access to content and fair pricing. Encourage and enable other companies to offer broadband access to the home, thus competing with cable and phone's grip. Lower the barriers of entry and turn the industry from oligopoly to a more open marketplace. Through both wire and wireless, broadband access should be easy to get and the choices of provider larger. Then you won't need to call it a utility and require more government regulation. An open economy is a stronger economy.

FCC To Turn Broadband Into a Utility

How much was your water bill last month? Your gas? Your Electric? Your Broadband? That certainly may become the next regulated service. And with it, a move from one month price to per kb consumed. Read your email, that's 2 kb, download a song 10 kb, a movie 10,000 kb. Watch the charges grow. That pipe to your home may have a counter attached and charge per byte.

Quite a slippery slope. That is not what the FCC says will happen though. "But Julius Genachowski, the F.C.C. chairman, said the approach would specifically forbid the commission from regulating rates charged by telephone and cable companies for Internet service and would not allow the commission to regulate Internet content, services, applications or electronic commerce sites." But isn't that what cable companies want to do, charge for usage.

And what about competition. Will other utilities be able to bring broadband to consumers as well. Could I decide whether to get my broadband service from my cable company, electric, gas, or even water company. Will the FCC encourage more competition in this space to maintain consumer friendly pricing. Will further regulation truly help the consumer or hurt us.

CBS News and CNN May Share Resources

The economy is slowly emerging and deals are in the air. Literally. Comcast and NBC, Continental and United. And while this news of CBS and CNN sharing resources is not technically a merger, it makes us wonder if there could soon be one. Cost savings and economies of scale are not new and as revenues have yet to bounce back, cost cutting keeps profits up. It is also the scond pairing of two media giants. First, just months ago was that CBS Sports and Turner were sharing the NCAA Basketball Tournament. Today, that they want to share news personnel and stories. "CBS could presumably realize considerable cost savings if a deal enabled the network to rely on more of CNN’s extensive news-gathering resources." And Turner gets similar savings and more awareness of its brands as well.

So what is stopping CNN and Turner and their corporate parent, Time Warner from buying CBS. Disney has ABC, NBC Universal has NBC, why shouldn't CBS have a corporate parent with multiple cable networks as well as a Hollywood studio. It seems like the right fit of content. And since Time Warner is now separated from its cable distribution company, none of the issues that face the merger of NBC with Comcast. "CBS and Time Warner are partners in several other areas of the television business. They co-own the part-time broadcast network CW (the C is for CBS, the W is for Warner), and the Warner Brothers television studio supplies CBS with a host of its top-rated prime-time shows". A merger would also force the reconciliation of union and non-union news workers that is described in the article. And it establishes control by one owner.

In this age of cost cutting, a combined news team does make sense; a full fledged merger of the two organizations even more so. Would Sumner Redstone agree to sell? Who knows. Would he consider buying...

Consumers Cutting Cable's Cord

Hey cable company, see that tree a mile in front of you, but in your path. If you don't start to act, you will run into it. Hey cable company see that tree, a half a mile in front of you. If you don't react, you'll plow into it. So how come the cable companies are driving smack down into that tree. As their revenues rise, their digital customer base appears to grow, and their average revenue per subscriber increases (ARPU), the cable companies watch as their stock prices rise. It seems all is well.

But trouble is indeed looming on the horizon. "One in eight Americans will cancel or cutback their pay TV service -- either cable or satellite -- in the next year, because it's getting so expensive, according to a major new study." In fact, basic subscriber numbers have consistently been dropping every quarter for cable. Some argue that this group is not spending much to begin with; dropping them makes their ARPU rise. Some are going to the competitors, others are dropping cable altogether.

The rise of mobile devices, iPad announced they sold their millionth unit already, along with wireless, signifies a change in direction for consumers. And while cable companies may need to up the price of broadband to offset the loss of cable, wireless opportunities should bring new competition to the market. I foresee utility companies looking at opportunities to easily expand their reach. Electric and gas companies could tap into this space and provide wireless coverage to entire towns.

As that tree finally gets right in front of cable's path, it may just prove too late. Customers will seek cheaper alternatives from new broadband sources. Today it may be 1 in 8, tomorrow 1 in 3. Cable companies must better adapt to TV Anywhere. It is not authenticating a different signal; it is allowing the home's set top box (or server)act as the gateway to multiple devices, wired and wireless. let the cable box talk to the mobile device, the iPad, the laptop, etc. Use technology like Slingbox and Tivo and others to your advantage. The time to act is now; else, you will be reacting too late to the tree and regardless of what you do, there will be a collision.

TV Ad Sales Market Rebounding

Despite the internet, despite VOD and DVR, despite other media, the TV business is growing again. "Barclays Capital analyst Anthony DiClemente expects upfront ad dollars for the four major broadcast networks -- ABC, CBS, Fox and NBC -- to rise 20 percent to $8.26 billion this year." Good news for the broadcast networks, and certainly good news for the cable nets as well. Advertisers seek TV for their media budget.

At the same time, let's hope that these same advertisers recognize that the only way to break out of the clutter is to diversify so that your message resonates across platforms. Out of box creative, entertaining copy, targeted placement to the key audience groups, can further assure that your message is heard and that consumer purchasing action occurs. And the choices for placement is vast. Besides TV, radio and billboards, newspaper and magazines have not gone away either. A solid direct marketing approach will also enable messages to enter into the home. And then there is social networking. It may appear to be a very inexpensive means to talk to the consumer but viral doesn't necessarily cause results. Social networking opportunities need to co-exist with these other media platforms to truly connect consumers with brands.

And so it is great to hear that spending is rising; let's hope the trend continues across platforms. Healthy spending indicates a better economy. And in this changing entertainment landscape, it's nice to see some good news.

Sirius May Be Safe From NASDAQ Delisting

Now that Sirius' stock price has been up over a buck for over a week, surviving yesterdays market downturn, it seems that Sirius will be safe from delisting. "Wall Street brokerages have price targets on Sirius at around $1.15 to $1.35 a share, not far above the $1.145 that the stock closed at on Tuesday, which was the 10th day that it has ended above $1, satisfying a Nasdaq listing requirement." Let's hope that there is more good news in store for Sirius.

The Problem With Media Convergence

Last night, I sat down to watch Channel 5 in New York, Fox News at 10. One of the stories was about the launch of The Wall Street Journal's new Greater New York section of the paper. The anchors and reporter all held up the edition and effused at how wonderful this edition was and all the news it contained. It mentioned how it competed with The New York Times. Oh, did I mention how wonderful this new section was, per each anchor's comments. This 3 minute plus "news piece" was then followed by the weather.

At no point did the news segment mention one very important fact; that both the Fox Affiliate and The Wall Street Journal are owned by the same organization, News Corporation. Sure there are lots of bloggers and other outlets to provide multiple points of view to a story. But, when two of the largest news organizations merge, they can incorrectly present news as something else. I can not tell you if the Fox news story was actually news or promotional advertising for The Wall Street Journal. It hurts both organizations "credibility" and "truthfulness". Fine to share a "story"; but next time, tell us all the facts; else, we may raise more of a red flag when multiple news outlets in a market converge and merge.