Kolek planning to go pro
A big disruption could be coming within a year or a little more, if the U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear the Aereo case. If they don't hear it, then the slower disruption continues. Aereo rebroadcasts network TV over the internet, with each subscriber having their own unique antenna. From a legal point of view, it is a very interesting case. If the U.S.S.C decides in favor of the broadcasters/cable companies, it slows the disruption down.A win for aereo could really speed things up as far as cord cutting. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-12/aereo-urges-u-s-supreme-court-to-hear-broadcast-tv-case.html
I agree on Aereo - except I don't expect them to win.I use a Roku for Netflix and also have access to hundreds of channels. Like Cable TV most are junk but there are about a half dozen decent ones besides Netflix. If it wasn't for Sports I would cut cable completely.But back at the turn of the century record execs were adamant that you got the whole album or nothing - they only changed when enough people chose nothing. THEN, the changed their sales model - something they said they could never do and still survive.Cable can afford to lose 500,000 - 1,000,000 customers a year for a few years, but if the number starts to go where they are losing 2% - 3% a year, they will 'suddenly' figure out that there are new innovative sales models to use.
Sigh. Hands are tied. If ESPN requires they be distributed in 90% to all subscribers, then there isn't a whole lot of "new innovative sales models"....that's been the beef for many years.
This excerpt I always found interesting from an article on the subject:"Last fall I had an interesting conversation with an influential player in the TV and movie production business, who explained the fear and loathing with which Apple is viewed in Hollywood.Part of the problem, he told me, is that the video guys all saw what happened to the music guys after they got in bed with Apple. But also, "Steve Jobs came down here and did meetings in Hollywood, talking to people who've been in this business for 25 years, and he told these guys, `You're all a bunch of idiots. You're dinosaurs.' The response from the Hollywood guys was, `Go f@ck yourself.'" As far as Hollywood is concerned, "Apple is scary. Steve Jobs was scary. There's a fear of empowering Apple. No one here has a vested interest in helping to build that up. It's a scary time, and do you really want an 800-pound gorilla controlling your pricing?"
Interesting!!I think Jobs was looking 5-10 years out and the studio guys were/are happy with current model. I think it ends up falling somewhere between what they each envisioned.
but with enough backlash could ESPN ever be forced to cave on that 90%? It's their business model that needs changing if enough foks that don't watch sports cut the cable. If that tipping comes maybe ESPN will have to eat some $ and just perhaps rein in sports costs i.e. athlete's salaries etc.
But who is going to be the first distributor to say no to ESPN and refuse to carry it? The first one that does is going to get hammered. Thus the problem.
one word: collusion maybe we need a distributor conspiracy
@GOOHow in the world do you watch MU basketball? If you're a big enough fan to participate in a fan forum I cannot believe you are content to not watch games.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130118/17425221736/cable-industry-finally-admits-that-data-caps-have-nothing-to-do-with-congestion.shtml??again, the problem is much MUCH bigger than the cable companies.having said that, shocking news here!! the cable companies are doing things that are pretty scummy overall
I have no problem if they clamp down on them....especially since I don't work for a cable company. However, from what I understand from the engineers that do handle this stuff, if you don't tier it and put artificial barriers in place (through price controls), you will cause a problem as people overly stream like crazy. There's a reason why the more water you use, the highered tiers kick in. Same for electricity, you go through various tiers with higher usage.
Sounds like you might be one of their lawyers
Water and electricity have to be produced for people to use them. So, the more you use, the more you should pay. With data? No. This is just like when cell companies were charging for texts, when they didn't need to.
That is true, but they physics of delivery don't change for the cable guys. There are only so many packets they can deliver at any time, and if the request for packets of data increases to the point it degrades their ability to deliver, that is a problem.Ever try to get a network signal, or even 3G or 4G in a stadium? Very difficult because everyone is pulling at the same time.This is why the delivery over the internet of video is still such a huge problem for single based events. We actually brought down HBO Go last year (us, DISH and Charter) for Game of Thrones because they did a preview of episode 2 right after episode 1 on Go only. It crashed their system because too many people at one single point in time it couldn't handle. That's just a specific example, but there are other broader examples that the cable guys are worried about in terms of performance metrics and what the network can truly absorb.
i'd buy more into this if the cable guys ever actually worried about "performance metrics". a large majority of the time, people aren't receiving the bandwidth they pay for anyway. joe schmo wouldn't really notice much difference, but he's not getting what he paid for most of the time anyway.
Nothing to with a la carte. Or anything of that ilk. But an interesting article nonetheless. I wonder if netflix, hulu, espn3, etc think the same way?http://bgr.com/2014/01/20/hbo-go-login-sharing-policy/
It's funny, I read a similar article about 8 months ago and again 3 months ago. I was with HBO a few weeks in New York and I point blanked them if they truly support what is in these articles, because if they do they have a major problem. They told me at basically one level below the CEO they do not support this and they are trying to curtail it. So, number one I thank you for sharing this article because I'm getting ready to send it to their #2 right now and ask again WTF? They are concerned about subscription revenue and having everyone bust their arses for this stuff and they make statements like this. Not good. Decide what you want.Thanks for sharing....I truly mean that.
So their CEO is saying one thing, and the rest of the company (executives) believe something totally different? Probably not the best atmosphere there...