HBO considering offering HBO GO w/o cable

[jesmu84]

Well, because the part of the company I deal with is responsible for selling it so when they hear their CEO say that kind of stuff they're like WTF.  I have data surveys of millenials and others showing absolutely it impacts business.  We have several former Netflix employees on the team now, and they know for a fact in has impacted Netflix subscriptions.  I don't know why this guy is saying this...I know he would like to believe that people borrowing a login will magically say I want it myself.  The reality is that people that borrow the login want to keep on borrowing the login.  No different than people here wanting a free stream for a MU game, they have no intention of paying for it. 

Fair enough. I can tell you I used to share a Netflix account with a couple buddies. We'd all pitch in some $$ and one guy would set it up.

[Coleman]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/sns-rt-us-amazon-paytv-20140121,0,4156461.story

No real details here, but interesting nonetheless

[Benny B]

Aaaaannnnddd, Amazon denies it:

http://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/morning_roundup/2014/01/amazon-denies-creation-of-streaming-tv.html

[ChicosBailBonds]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/sns-rt-us-amazon-paytv-20140121,0,4156461.story

No real details here, but interesting nonetheless

Yup, former boss of mine leading the effort........


All comes down to what the content companies (Disney, Viacom, NewsCorp, etc will sell their content for). 

[ChicosBailBonds]

Aaaaannnnddd, Amazon denies it:

http://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/morning_roundup/2014/01/amazon-denies-creation-of-streaming-tv.html

Everyone has tried to kick the tires on this...Apple, Google, Intel, Amazon, etc.  Intel threw in the towel officially yesterday by selling their infrastructure to Verizon yesterday for unspecified terms (rumored to be asking for $500 million). 

None of them can make a go at it because the power is in the hands of the content makers as discussed here many many times.  We'll see how Amazon is doing.  They can deny it, but they are kicking the tires like everyone else and the spreadsheets don't lie.  Not yet anyway.  Times will change, but the revolution that people predicted in 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 is so extremely complicated that people just don't understand the mechanics of it.  Some day will it happen, probably but unlikely in the form people think.  Is some day in 2015 or 2020 or ..... ?

[ChicosBailBonds]

Latest...the economic disparity is huge.

http://www.engadget.com/2014/02/05/time-warner-reveals-how-much-money-hbo-makes-and-why-its-not-s/?a_dgi=gravity

[Coleman]

Latest...the economic disparity is huge.

http://www.engadget.com/2014/02/05/time-warner-reveals-how-much-money-hbo-makes-and-why-its-not-s/?a_dgi=gravity

Wow. The margins of HBO vs. Netflix is astounding, given their revenue is about the same.

How do they do it? Especially with how expensive Game of Thrones is to make...I don't get it...

Is Netflix just overpaying for content?

[ChicosBailBonds]

Wow. The margins of HBO vs. Netflix is astounding, given their revenue is about the same.

How do they do it? Especially with how expensive Game of Thrones is to make...I don't get it...

Is Netflix just overpaying for content?

The irony is, Netflix's biggest bills haven't even hit yet.  $5.5 BILLION coming their way in expenses over the next 36 months.  They aren't charging enough.  They are trying to grow their way to prosperity with volume, but that is a strategy that can only go so far....then when they have to raise their rates a lot of the folks that are on the lower end of the economic food chain will drop them as a result.  Interesting times ahead, for everyone.  Challenging, because we totally get what the customers want, have to deal with what the channels want ($$), etc, etc.  I'm right in the middle of it...hair getting greyer by the day.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Interesting update from SNL Kagan today.

"With 85% of movies and nearly 93% of TV series unavailable on Netflix Inc"

Hypothesizing when customer churn start to ramp up for lack of content.

Reminds me of this banner from the Honest Corporate Slogans spoof done last year

[jesmu84]

http://www.businessinsider.com/comcast-to-buy-time-warner-cable-2014-2

Where the hell is the DOJ or FCC on these deals? Did our anti-monopoly laws just get locked in a drawer somewhere and forgotten about? Bad enough when Comcast was allowed to buy NBC-Universal (no coincidence at all one of the FCC executives who pushed through that deal ended up becoming an executive at Comcast-Universal shortly after... )

[brandx]

http://www.businessinsider.com/comcast-to-buy-time-warner-cable-2014-2

Where the hell is the DOJ or FCC on these deals? Did our anti-monopoly laws just get locked in a drawer somewhere and forgotten about? Bad enough when Comcast was allowed to buy NBC-Universal (no coincidence at all one of the FCC executives who pushed through that deal ended up becoming an executive at Comcast-Universal shortly after... )

All of those free marketers get very quiet over a deal like this. Rather than supporting competition in the marketplace to control prices, they just turn and walk away.

[77ncaachamps]

All of those free marketers get very quiet over a deal like this. Rather than supporting competition in the marketplace to control prices, they just turn and walk away.

Amen.

They do it because it helps their stock profile.

[Coleman]

http://www.businessinsider.com/comcast-to-buy-time-warner-cable-2014-2

Where the hell is the DOJ or FCC on these deals? Did our anti-monopoly laws just get locked in a drawer somewhere and forgotten about? Bad enough when Comcast was allowed to buy NBC-Universal (no coincidence at all one of the FCC executives who pushed through that deal ended up becoming an executive at Comcast-Universal shortly after... )

Give the process time. The companies have to announce their intentions before it can be reviewed by regulators, and this stuff can take months to go through regulatory approval. I'm sure it will get a very close look by US regulators, and I doubt it goes through as-is to be very honest.

[ChicosBailBonds]

http://www.businessinsider.com/comcast-to-buy-time-warner-cable-2014-2

Where the hell is the DOJ or FCC on these deals? Did our anti-monopoly laws just get locked in a drawer somewhere and forgotten about? Bad enough when Comcast was allowed to buy NBC-Universal (no coincidence at all one of the FCC executives who pushed through that deal ended up becoming an executive at Comcast-Universal shortly after... )

Think about, how is it less competition?  TWC and Comcast already have municipal monopolies.  You can't have two cable companies in the same territory today.  All that is happening here is one buying out the other's territory....no changes.  The competition comes from Directv, Dish, Fios, Uverse.  Now, if the FCC, FTC, DOJ, etc allowed Dish and Directv to merge, that would truly reduce competition.

As for a gov't official getting a job......SHOCKING.  Sounds like the reverse with all the "impartial" media members that have cozy jobs with this administration.  SHOCKING.

[ChicosBailBonds]

All of those free marketers get very quiet over a deal like this. Rather than supporting competition in the marketplace to control prices, they just turn and walk away.

You clearly need to research this one a little bit more, then come back.  How is competition, IN THIS CASE, reduced since it is already IMPOSSIBLE for a customer to choose between TWC and COMCAST today.  The option DOES NOT EXIST.  Anyone living in any of these cities where either of these cable companies do business today still have the EXACT same choices

A cable company
Two satellite companies
One telephone company (the telephone companies also have territories, you can choose FIOS or UVERSE, it's one or the other if they even are there at all)

I look forward to the answer.  

Apparently all those liberal pro gov't folks may have jumped the gun on this one.   

[Coleman]

Think about, how is it less competition?  TWC and Comcast already have municipal monopolies.  You can't have two cable companies in the same territory today.  All that is happening here is one buying out the other's territory....no changes.  The competition comes from Directv, Dish, Fios, Uverse.  Now, if the FCC, FTC, DOJ, etc allowed Dish and Directv to merge, that would truly reduce competition.

As for a gov't official getting a job......SHOCKING.  Sounds like the reverse with all the "impartial" media members that have cozy jobs with this administration.  SHOCKING.

False. I have 2 different cable companies I can pick from where I live in Chicago, Comcast and RCN. Maybe not true everywhere, but certainly true in a lot of bigger markets.

[Coleman]

You clearly need to research this one a little bit more, then come back.  How is competition, IN THIS CASE, reduced since it is already IMPOSSIBLE for a customer to choose between TWC and COMCAST today.  The option DOES NOT EXIST.  Anyone living in any of these cities where either of these cable companies do business today still have the EXACT same choices

A cable company
Two satellite companies
One telephone company (the telephone companies also have territories, you can choose FIOS or UVERSE, it's one or the other if they even are there at all)

I look forward to the answer.  

Apparently all those liberal pro gov't folks may have jumped the gun on this one.  

As I said in my above post, despite your convincing use of caps lock, that is not true everywhere. Many markets have multiple cable companies to choose from.

[ChicosBailBonds]

False. I have 3 different cable companies I can pick from where I live in Chicago. Maybe not true everywhere, but certainly true in a lot of bigger markets.

Cable service is a monopoly in literally 98% of this country. If you live in pocket that allows you to get more than one, you are the lucky 2%ers....  In those RARE instances when they overlap, TWC and Comcast have already said they will divest those subscribers...problem solved.

And it is certainly NOT true in most bigger markets.  I have maps and maps and maps of every cable market in every DMA in this country.  They are very neatly carved out and only ONE is allowed in those markets with VERY few exceptions. In those exceptions, it's still one cable company owning the cable and another is providing an overlay on top of their lines.  In those situations, check out the difference between them....usually its the company logo on the bill, and that's it.  Simply because that overlay company is essentially just renting the line, doing business with the owner of that line, etc.  Think of it in the old days of Covad and various ISPs like Earthlink, etc.  Municipalities didn't want an existing cable company that already laid the copper to have another one come in, tear up all the streets to lay new copper down.  Plus, the other cable companies don't want to spend all that money knowing there is an incumbent already there, makes no business sense for them to do so.

[Coleman]

Cable service is a monopoly in literally 98% of this country. If you live in pocket that allows you to get more than one, you are the lucky 2%ers....  In those RARE instances when they overlap, TWC and Comcast have already said they will divest those subscribers...problem solved.

And it is certainly NOT true in most bigger markets.  I have maps and maps and maps of every cable market in every DMA in this country.  They are very neatly carved out and only ONE is allowed in those markets with VERY few exceptions. In those exceptions, it's still one cable company owning the cable and another is providing an overlay on top of their lines.  In those situations, check out the difference between them....usually its the company logo on the bill, and that's it.  Simply because that overlay company is essentially just renting the line, doing business with the owner of that line, etc.  Think of it in the old days of Covad and various ISPs like Earthlink, etc.  Municipalities didn't want an existing cable company that already laid the copper to have another one come in, tear up all the streets to lay new copper down.  Plus, the other cable companies don't want to spend all that money knowing there is an incumbent already there, makes no business sense for them to do so.

I did correct it to 2. I thought it was 3, but I was wrong.

You are correct, it is an overlay service. I do think that this is still a good thing. . The model is working for electric utilities. If every market had a Comcast and an overlay, consumers would benefit, if not from better prices than at least from improved customer service.

[Hards Alumni]

Cable service is a monopoly in literally 98% of this country. If you live in pocket that allows you to get more than one, you are the lucky 2%ers....  In those RARE instances when they overlap, TWC and Comcast have already said they will divest those subscribers...problem solved.

And it is certainly NOT true in most bigger markets.  I have maps and maps and maps of every cable market in every DMA in this country.  They are very neatly carved out and only ONE is allowed in those markets with VERY few exceptions. In those exceptions, it's still one cable company owning the cable and another is providing an overlay on top of their lines.  In those situations, check out the difference between them....usually its the company logo on the bill, and that's it.  Simply because that overlay company is essentially just renting the line, doing business with the owner of that line, etc.  Think of it in the old days of Covad and various ISPs like Earthlink, etc.  Municipalities didn't want an existing cable company that already laid the copper to have another one come in, tear up all the streets to lay new copper down.  Plus, the other cable companies don't want to spend all that money knowing there is an incumbent already there, makes no business sense for them to do so.

+1

Anyone remember Ma Bell?

[ChicosBailBonds]

National, state, county...can drill down to the street level if needed, but these are how the territories are divided through almost all of the country...I'm using public maps, not proprietary ones.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I did correct it to 2. I thought it was 3, but I was wrong.

You are correct, it is an overlay service. I do think that this is still a good thing. . The model is working for electric utilities. If every market had a Comcast and an overlay, consumers would benefit, if not from better prices than at least from improved customer service.

What is the incentive for a company to do that?  Ultimately, that is the question you would need to ask.  If an incumbent has been there for 30+ years, paying that incumbent to be an overlay is very costly, then you likely have to cut your rates to get people to even consider switching which reduces your margins....and the kicker...you're using their cable line so the service quality is exactly the same as the other guy (it's his line).  If his line has artifacts in it, or whatever, then you get those, too.

The only way I see any of that ever working is if there is joint or multiple ownership of the line, but that also presents massive problems from an operational point of view.

I get why you would want it, but I think if you dig deeper into the realities of why it almost never happens there is a clear reason why. It makes no economic sense to invest that kind of money for almost no return.

[jesmu84]

Cable service is a monopoly in literally 98% of this country. If you live in pocket that allows you to get more than one, you are the lucky 2%ers....  In those RARE instances when they overlap, TWC and Comcast have already said they will divest those subscribers...problem solved.

And it is certainly NOT true in most bigger markets.  I have maps and maps and maps of every cable market in every DMA in this country.  They are very neatly carved out and only ONE is allowed in those markets with VERY few exceptions. In those exceptions, it's still one cable company owning the cable and another is providing an overlay on top of their lines.  In those situations, check out the difference between them....usually its the company logo on the bill, and that's it.  Simply because that overlay company is essentially just renting the line, doing business with the owner of that line, etc.  Think of it in the old days of Covad and various ISPs like Earthlink, etc.  Municipalities didn't want an existing cable company that already laid the copper to have another one come in, tear up all the streets to lay new copper down.  Plus, the other cable companies don't want to spend all that money knowing there is an incumbent already there, makes no business sense for them to do so.

But isn't this a problem in itself?? Again, monopoly. If consumers don't have choices, they lose. It's said the gov't can't or won't do anything about situations like this. Yes, over-regulation is a problem, but it's not as though companies would regulate themselves if the gov't weren't around in these situations.

[ChicosBailBonds]

But isn't this a problem in itself?? Again, monopoly. If consumers don't have choices, they lose. It's said the gov't can't or won't do anything about situations like this. Yes, over-regulation is a problem, but it's not as though companies would regulate themselves if the gov't weren't around in these situations.

Flip the question.  Say a brand new community springs up and they want cable infrastructure in their town.  They go to Comcast, TWC, Charter, Cox, etc and say we want you all to provide service here.  OK.  Now let's do the math.  Each of them is going to spend enormous dollars to lay that system in knowing they might get 10%, 20% share....pay back in 30 years from now.  What's the interest level going to be from those companies considering the capital cost to put all that stuff in?  Low to non existent.  Remember, this is hard wired stuff, not over the air....that's the advantage satellite has had (no trenches to be dug, no cable to be laid...no infrastructure costs).

Now, if you say we want bids from each of you and you will own the territory so you can recoup your cost in a reasonable time period, what's the interest?  Much higher and why the system exists today. 

Now, if you want the gov't to lay the cable, the gov't to own the cable...that's an option...they tend to do so many other things so well and are so customer oriented, that could be a solution. 

[Coleman]

What is the incentive for a company to do that?  Ultimately, that is the question you would need to ask.  If an incumbent has been there for 30+ years, paying that incumbent to be an overlay is very costly, then you likely have to cut your rates to get people to even consider switching which reduces your margins....and the kicker...you're using their cable line so the service quality is exactly the same as the other guy (it's his line).  If his line has artifacts in it, or whatever, then you get those, too.

The only way I see any of that ever working is if there is joint or multiple ownership of the line, but that also presents massive problems from an operational point of view.

I get why you would want it, but I think if you dig deeper into the realities of why it almost never happens there is a clear reason why. It makes no economic sense to invest that kind of money for almost no return.

It happens all the time in electric utilities. Its everywhere in the Chicagoland region.

The reason is simple, there's lots of money to be made.

The big utility, Commonwealth Edison, has fat margins. So some other guy pays to overlay, and still makes big profits, with slightly lesser margins. ComEd takes the free money up front, for a potential loss in market share, and the new guy competes by offering better rates and customer service.