My Television Is Already A Dumb Terminal

No matter how much television manufacturers try to smarten up their TV sets, I believe a vast majority only use it as a dumb screen connected to a smart box.  If essentially your remote is used to turn the TV on or off, raise or lower volume, or perhaps switch input devices, your screen is a dumb screen.  All the content that streams through it comes from another device, your cable box most likely, or perhaps a game box, blu-ray or DVD player, Apple TV, or some other separate box connected to your set. 

So why are we paying for smart TVs with WIFI and other content applications?  Because companies are hoping you will prefer an integrated experience, but history has proved otherwise.  In the old world of stereo entertainment platforms, some manufacturers offered us one box that combined turntable, amplifier, radio, and speakers in one; the more sophisticated devices were separate pieces that plugged together.  The best receiver, the best turntable, the best speakers, the best CD player for the price you wanted to spend.  So while some customers may like a smart TV, I believe most prefer the separate devices that fit their budget and their lifestyle.

Mark Arana, executive director for strategy and innovation at Walt Disney Studios, at an OTT panel at Streaming Media West, seems to believe that "television will become a second screen, essentially a dumb terminal for content streamed from mobile devices."  I'm quite surprised at this remark as a future occurance as it has been happening for more than a decade.  Just look at the penetration of cable boxes in the home, mostly happening years ago when cable operators switched from analog to digital and required a converter box to unscramble signals.  At that point, the TV became a dumb device.  Since then, more and more boxes have emerged, thanks to the rise of streaming, to offer more content choice into this same dumb box, as well as into tablets, smartphones, and laptops. 

Consumers can pick their platform and pick their device to view, no longer tethered to the TV set.  Its allure continues to be the bigger screen, but for consumers that demand mobility and more personal viewing, the TV set is simply one monitor choice.  But second screen, I don't think so; it still represents for many homes the central focal point for family viewing.  Its simply a dumb screen with many more content platforms to connect to it. 

Will Comcast Godfather A Charter And Time Warner Cable Deal?

Charter has some business interests in acquiring Time Warner Cable and it seems it makes sense to get some help from "The Godfather" or in this case, Comcast Cable.  As the largest cable operator, Comcast still has interests to improve its footprint and a possible result might be that Charter would spin off some markets for Comcast's financial support.  "Charter approached Comcast last week to discuss carving up Time Warner Cable's systems and subscribers, after the second-largest U.S. cable company rejected its offer, Reuters reported."

Consolidation in the wired space has become an important need, especially to compete against telco companies like AT&T and Verizon.  With Verizon's acquisition of Intel Media, it is becoming more and more clear that their plans are to expand its footprint beyond its FIOS footprint.  With an expanded wired footprint and wireless connections for authenticated users, Comcast and Charter could both win. 

Verizon On Internet Buying Spree

It seems that Verizon is on a strategic mission with aggressive plans to compete in the wired and wireless space.  The growing demand for access to content and the platform to support it has led Verizon on a buying spree.  Last month, Verizon announced its plan to acquire EdgeCast Networks, a leader in the CDN or content delivery space; Now Verizon has formalized a plan to acquire the Intel Media unit and its OnCue TV business from Intel.  The OnCue platform, set top box and applications, was Intel's attempt to compete in the OTT space.  "OnCue is designed to provide pay-TV programming over any high-speed Internet connection, making it a threat to cable-TV services that deliver shows over dedicated lines restricted by territory. Intel’s system includes servers, set-top boxes and applications that can stream content to televisions, phones and tablets."

Now under the Verizon FIOS umbrella, content may finally be available for the service.  Coupled with a CDN to support stream demand, Verizon seems to be acquiring the pieces to augment its FIOS business beyond the confines of a wired franchise.  Certainly Verizon FIOS, along with its cellular business Verizon Wireless, aims to be a more competitive business to the cable and satellite providers.

The biggest impediment remains content companies, especially broadcast and cable networks, that work hard to protect all their revenue streams by limiting licensing agreements to specific platforms and uses.  It is why OnCue was unable to create an OTT line-up of channels to market to consumers.  Verizon is fortunate enough to have FIOS agreements in place as well as content from Redbox Instant.  But I'm sure given the acquisitions that have already occurred, Verizon has a strategic plan in place for content too.  And perhaps that includes buying a content company like a Scripps or Discovery to fill the bucket.  That would be my guess. 

"How Do You Solve A Problem Like Maria" (or DVRs)

It seems that NBC recognizes the key to survival of linear television is live programming.  Credit sports, award shows, and now for NBC, Broadway musicals on television.  With the success of The Sound Of Music last December, NBC has announced its second live production, Peter Pan. 

Certainly casting will drive the buzz worthiness.  For Sound it was Carrie Underwood vs Julie Andrews; and for Peter Pan, the question will be who will play the role made notable by Mary Martin.  Viewers still willing to make appointment television, will enjoy these programming choices.  Peter Pan may not have the same fan base as Sound of Music, but it certainly has the name recognition.  Should this strategy prove another ratings hit, other Broadcast and Cable networks may soon try to overload us with this same approach.  And sometimes too much of a good thing is too much. 

There Is Nothing Like TV (Set)

Let's face it, despite the rise of tablets, smartphones, and laptops, we still like to watch out TVs.  There is nothing like a big screen HDTV to watch a movie, sporting event, or any number of TV shows.  But we must also separate where that content is coming from.  No longer is it being driven by antenna or cable operators directly into our TV set; instead, options have multiplied as more and more devices sync with our big screen monitor.  We have Roku, Apple TV, and gaming devices like XBox One and PS4, connecting video content to the set; We have Chromecast, Blu-ray players, and more all with streaming media capabilities.  And the choice of viewing is almost unlimited. 

More amazing, we also have choice when deciding whether to watch our shows on the big screen or our personal handheld devices.  TV Everywhere continues to make progress so that our linear networks are viewable where we are and not just on the TV.  Still, my original premise holds.  When we plan to be sedentary for a while, there is nothing like the size, sound, and detail coming from a big screen HDTV monitor and surround sound speakers that makes all the difference in the world.

Should Apple make an HDTV to compete in the space with Samsung and others?  Many expect a smart, internet enabled, HDTV, to be announced this year. But my recommendation.  If Apple must build a screen, make it a dumb monitor and put all the connectivity into its Apple TV box.  Its already built and besides, Apple is building so many different size screens for its iPad and iPhone, why not build a 55" screen for the living room. 

Broadband Could Bundle Like Cable

The loss of net neutrality has many folks fearing that equal access to content will no longer be equal.  Where the FCC tried to ensure that all content was treated equally regardless of its size, the recent US Court order has opened Pandora's Box to new concerns including higher costs to access higher speeds and bundling of content online.  And ultimately, that consumers will pay more to access content.

Critics of the new ruling believe that now ISP companies, the ones providing broadband service to your home, will charge content companies more to get HOV access and faster speeds.  More established and richer content platforms, can afford to pay up, but they might also need to raise their subscription fees to recoup those added costs.

ISPs, like Comcast and Time Warner, could also start charging consumers more usage fees and bundle content to customers that want to receive faster streams.  "The cheapest, fastest bundles will probably include the sites that pay ISPs the most -- most likely the big boys, including Amazon and Netflix. Another possibility is that ISPs could bundle popular sites with less-popular ones that are willing to pay. If you pay for a Netflix bundle, for example, you may be forced to use the Bing search engine."  Good for the more established brands, but bad for new platforms and its content trying to get discovered and viewed.  It starts to look eerily reminiscent of today's cable packaging plans.

And while the internet is not a utility, it certainly has become useful for utilitarian purposes from communication to information.  "Access to unrestricted news will become a luxury reserved only for those who can pay more to their providers."  Schools and libraries could become the best meeting places for the less fortunate to access high speed internet. 

Of course, all this pontificating doesn't take into account how consumers and the government react to any detrimental shifts.  We can be sure that new disruptive technologies will also emerge to quickly change the landscape, from new ideas to reduce file loads to new entrants in the ISP space and new technologies that make the current internet look like a dinosaur.  The media landscape continues to evolve at a faster and faster pace and no doubt, the end of net neutrality may simply be the opportunity for new doors to open. 

The Court Enables ISPs To Run HOV Lanes

In what has been described as a blow to net neutrality, the US Court has pushed aside FCC efforts to keep the internet stream open and equal to all.  Instead, they are allowed to operate HOV lanes and charge premium pricing for access.  That means that broadband providers like Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Verizon, and others can pursue deals with high usage content distributors like Netflix, Amazon and others for faster streams at higher prices.  In addition, "The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled Tuesday that the FCC did not have the authority to prohibit broadband and mobile service providers from selectively blocking or slowing Web traffic and applications."

For companies willing to pay it means more costs to distribute and for broadband providers, it means a new revenue stream.  And for the consumer, it ultimately means higher costs for content and some difficulty in getting content from outlier platforms.  If Netflix needs to pay more for distribution, they need to charge consumers a higher subscription fee to recoup those losses.  Consumers will find content that didn't pay for HOV access slowed down in getting their streams to our respective devices. 

Why did the courts rule this way?  It is because they do not see the web as a utility like gas, electric, or water.  It is not a basic right regardless of how pervasive it has become for communication purposes.  And the laws of our free economy best operate under supply and demand.  As long as it does not operate under monopolistic conditions, government shouldn't interfere.  And like a free economy, the rules of disruptive technology should also apply.  Technological innovation to improve streaming, deliver alternative solutions, and improve our lives.  By not setting net neutrality rules, the US Court may just be inviting new broadband opportunities to emerge. 

Charter Cable Talks, DirecTv Balks

A busy 24 hours in media and distribution as Charter Cable finally pulls the trigger and makes a formal bid for Time Warner Cable; at the same time, negotiations for contract renewal collapses between DirecTv and The Weather Channel and so the network is dropped from its lineup.  And yet neither of these occurrences should come as a surprise to anyone.

For Charter and Time Warner Cable (TWC), discussions have been ongoing and the question became just how much would Charter bid.  The current offer matches the current stock price and does little to impress TWC management.  So next step, Charter plans to take it directly to the shareholders and demonstrate that a combined entity will deliver better earnings, higher profits, and a better investment.  And more leverage to negotiating license fees with cable networks.

Which brings me to the latest cable operator balking out what are likely higher license fees for carriage of The Weather Channel.  Certainly its license fees are not exceptionally high, especially compared to sports and other top 10 cable networks; still, weather content can be found quickly and easily online.  When weather doesn't affect our lives, Weather Channel programming tends toward reality type programming; but, when the big storms hit, weather fans love to watch the network and embrace the rising tides, high winds, snow flakes, and more. 

But then again, it seems, so does every other news oriented network, from CNN to MSNBC to Fox plus all the broadcast affiliates.  Weather reporting is everywhere. In fact, cable networks have all left their core niche arena to be general entertainment for all, from news and weather, to reality programming and broad based entertainment.  So DirecTv must believe that their customers will not suffer greatly as they have other networks to fill the void.  Plus any cost savings helps DirecTv to keep its subscription fees from rising. 

The Weather Channel may be feeling the heat, but so have other networks struggling to get or keep on cable line-ups.  And with more consolidation potentially in cable, a TWC-Charter merger lets them negotiate even more tightly in what channels stay on their merged line-ups and which channels may face the ax. 

Apple's iPad Air Ad Takes New Tact

If your were watching the football games this weekend or The Golden Globes, you may have also watched the latest Apple ad for the iPad Air.  If not, here it is:



I have to first admit that when I initially saw it, I did not think it was an Apple branded ad.  Its style and context were a complete departure from their other ads.  But the more I watch it and think about it, the more it reminds me of their first ever ad, "1984", one that separated itself from the pack.  And with this newest ad, I believe they have achieved the same result.  Forbes says it well, "The company wants to show off why people love and use its products. They may be metal, glass and silicon, but what you’re buying is experience. It couldn’t be more removed from most everything the competition is doing."  But it also places the iPad in the hands of artists, risk takers, and professionals, and makes the product an essential element of the process.  And one thing it doesn't say is that you buy it for its lowest price, claims made by Apple competitors.  No, the iPad is meant for more meaningful accomplishments, whether conducting a marching bands routines, taking or creating pictures, or discovering new species.  And this newest ad campaign takes the user on this new journey. 
-->