For future streaming of games if anybody needs them.

[The Process]

Stop with the personal attacks stuff.  It never makes thread better.

You know what does make thread better?

[Aughnanure]

The "ridiculous charges" are driven by those programming costs.  When ESPN goes out and spends billions for Monday Night Football, who do you think pays for that?  ESPN?    Dish, Directv, AT&T, Charter, Cox, TimeWarner pay for it.  Guess what, who do you think has to pay for them?  The customers.   That over the air channel you can get for free from CBS with rabbit ears, Dish, Directv, Comcast, etc all have to pay several dollars per subscriber per month for something that is "free" to retransmit those feeds.  I've seen some in the last 18 months where stations have demanded over 500% increase in fees. 

Thievery isn't part of the free enterprise or the entrepreneurial spirit....it's thievery.  It will continue to raise rates for honest folks, just like insurance fraud and others like it.

When the money dries up, it will be fun to watch what people will steal next.  In the meantime, it's always interesting to read about the latest thief busted, the fines that these folks have to pay and the jail times they serve.  That's the spirit.   Da judge recently sent one guy up (a repeat offender) to do 4 years in the pokey and $100K fine.  Most of the fines and punishments less severe. 

You should talk to many of our most famous entrepreneurs. Sorry, I'm rolling my eyes at the devastatingly poor situation our media conglomerates are in.

People have always stolen, and that has never stopped people from creating.

[Aughnanure]

Justification...word.  I don't like paying taxes and think it is absurd how the gov't spends money, I shall henceforth not pay them as a result.  Welcome to the slippery slope.  Happy New Year

[ChicosBailBonds]

Benny, you do realize that on average now it costs more to buy music from iTunes than it does a CD at a store, right?  About $1 to $2 more than buying the CD.

Buy a Kindle book, it's more than the paperback version.


It's funny how people think the digital versions are cheaper because "there is nothing to manufacture".  LOL

[Benny B]

Benny, you do realize that on average now it costs more to buy music from iTunes than it does a CD at a store, right?  About $1 to $2 more than buying the CD.

Buy a Kindle book, it's more than the paperback version.


It's funny how people think the digital versions are cheaper because "there is nothing to manufacture".  LOL

But I don't want to buy the CD (cable/satellite package)... I want to buy a single song (ESPN).
Who cares what the better "value" is, the "more-money-in-my-pocket" option is iTunes.

I'm sure this shortsightedness is prevalent throughout your organization... must be why DTV is on many traders' short lists.

[avid1010]

It's funny how people think the digital versions are cheaper because "there is nothing to manufacture".  LOL

plenty of comparisons to be made to tv

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57412587-93/why-e-books-cost-so-much/

[nathanziarek]

We all break laws on a daily basis, and we all have to decide if we can then look ourselves in the mirror, and decide if the risk is worth the reward.

I just need to make the point that, other than my costs being a little higher, I really don't care about the "stealing" aspect. I care that people justify it because "the company won't give me exactly what I want when I want it."

the entitlement argument is interesting...i never thought of it through that lens, but i don't believe there is a cable or dish provider that wouldn't gladly screw me over if it were in their best interest.  people post ESPN insider articles on here all the time..i don't see it as a sense of entitlement, and i surely don't feel bad for ESPN. 

I don't know about screwing you over, but they are all trying to maximize revenue. It's not about feeling bad for a faceless media conglomerate or their writers or the web guy. It's about the idea that content is worthless and justifying its "theft" (or whatever we want to call it) because its not being offered in the EXACT medium we want.

Is there a physical product that's analogous to this? I can't think of one.

[nathanziarek]

If I chose to use a streaming source to watch games that I'd never pay for, how much money has the network lost?

So I'm clear, the rule is "anything I don't find valuable is free for the taking"?

Regardless, we're talking about catching Marquette games, which is something you'd pay for. That's a real expense to the network.

Again, steal if you want, it really doesn't affect me...just enough with the making yourself feel better by justifying it.

[reinko]

Correct me if I'm wrong, thought it was technically illegal to stream a sport, but to watch it was technically legal.  If not, erp.

[nathanziarek]

Correct me if I'm wrong, thought it was technically illegal to stream a sport, but to watch it was technically legal.  If not, erp.

I don't know about the legality of it, but the industries have shied away from taking consumers (watchers) to court, focusing on the providers (streamers). A big part of that strategy is probably just "cut off the head"—there are fewer streamers, and stopping them kills the problem.

Another part is pricing. Streamers are liable for more damages, since one stream can go out to thousands of people.

But I'd bet there's another component that's just good business. If they took a watcher to court, they'd have to explicitly put a value on their content. You'd go to court for watching the UConn/Marquette game, and they'd have to say that cost them $.30 in real damages (plus $500k in punitive damages, of course). I don't think anyone—negotiating teams, cable providers—wants those numbers out there.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Very appropriate article today. 

http://gizmodo.com/5972517/the-future-of-tv-may-not-be-worth-it

[forgetful]

Very appropriate article today. 

http://gizmodo.com/5972517/the-future-of-tv-may-not-be-worth-it

There will be legislation soon at some point breaking up these companies.  Things will be forced to change with the new generations just not getting cable at all.  If it wasn't for the fact that the cable companies are also your only source for internet and the internet alone price is extreme we would have already gotten rid of cable in our house.  Just not worth it in the current format.

[ChicosBailBonds]

There will be legislation soon at some point breaking up these companies.  Things will be forced to change with the new generations just not getting cable at all.  If it wasn't for the fact that the cable companies are also your only source for internet and the internet alone price is extreme we would have already gotten rid of cable in our house.  Just not worth it in the current format.

Uhm, ok.  Does that come before or after they ban cigarettes that kill people?

[akmarq]

Uhm, ok.  Does that come before or after they ban cigarettes that kill people?

He has a point about a generational gap. I am in the under 25 but out of college crowd and I don't have a single friend who has cable. All of us subscribe to at least one streaming service and then fill in the gaps with DVDs, going to bars for sports, or finding a stream of somthing online.

Point is - it would seem to me that the writing is sort of on the walll. I don't think cable will collapse in the next few years, but dying a slow death seems sort of inevitable at this point (unless they innovate in the service delivery side).

How long is Google Fiber going to stay in KC only?

[nathanziarek]

There are some good comments in that article—I especially agree with the topic of "discovery"—how does a new show or channel find an audience? I think we'll see some of the answer to that with "House of Cards" on Netflix. How do they spread the word about that show? If it's through TV advertising, that's a problem for the cord-cutting crowd.

I also think we need to look at where we are in the cord cutting lifecycle. Young people are not getting cable because there's tons to watch on Netflix. But Netflix is really just last year's cable. If there's no one around to pay for risks on new shows, Netflix's inventory dries up pretty quick.

* * *

I agree that the media companies will at some point be market-forced to change, but that won't necessarily mean for the better. I think à la carte will mean less programming (which might be an ok outcome), but also less risk-taking on expensive, niche shows like Game of Thrones.

Chicos -- Do you think you'll ever get to a world where DirecTV breaks apart their packages into provider chunks ... like the "Comcast package "or the "AMC Networks package" like HBO or Showtime are sold today?

[nathanziarek]

All of us subscribe to at least one streaming service and then fill in the gaps with DVDs...

But you're really just watching time-delayed cable, right? Cable-subscribers are footing the bill for the companies to take risks on programming, and you get to choose the cream of the crop. Which is awesome for now (I'm in the same boat).

If cable-subscribers die off, where does our streaming content come from? Am I going to be forced to subscribe to 10 different streaming sites at $8+ a pop to watch a few shows a year?

It'll be interesting ... I just don't think it's nearly as simple as most cord-cutters (or cord-nevers) make it seem.

[ChicosBailBonds]

He has a point about a generational gap. I am in the under 25 but out of college crowd and I don't have a single friend who has cable. All of us subscribe to at least one streaming service and then fill in the gaps with DVDs, going to bars for sports, or finding a stream of somthing online.

Point is - it would seem to me that the writing is sort of on the walll. I don't think cable will collapse in the next few years, but dying a slow death seems sort of inevitable at this point (unless they innovate in the service delivery side).

How long is Google Fiber going to stay in KC only?

You guys continue to miss the point...it isn't technology, it is the RIGHTS to the programming and the cost to produce it. You guys keep focusing on delivery mechanisms and not on content creation, rights fees, licensing fees, etc.  The providers (Comcast, Dish, Directv,etc) are forced by contract to bundle these services.  The folks that demand this are Disney, HBO, Viacom, CBS, NewsCorp, etc, etc.  ESPN, as an example, has absolutely no interest in allowing their channel to be purchased by 25% of the country when they can get 90%..especially when they have purchased sports rights based on the guarantee of 90% of the eyeballs.  Congress knows this as well. 

Google has said they are not going beyond KC.  Costs way too much.  Just as Fios, ATT have stopped expansion.  Costs way too much.

On the generational gap...yes, we see it but we've always seen it.  Eventually people get into their later 20's, early 30's and make some money and end up getting pay television.  At the end of the day, the average American pays $2.34 a day for, on average, about 164 channels of 24 hour news, sports, entertainment, etc.  You should see what the average American pays per day for mobile phone use, their coffee habit, etc.

[ChicosBailBonds]

But you're really just watching time-delayed cable, right? Cable-subscribers are footing the bill for the companies to take risks on programming, and you get to choose the cream of the crop. Which is awesome for now (I'm in the same boat).

It'll be interesting ... I just don't think it's nearly as simple as most cord-cutters (or cord-nevers) make it seem.

Exactly correct.  Cord cutters view through a lens of SUCCESSFUL post launch of a show, not the prelaunch, the piloting, etc.  Companies will be less inclined to develop niche programming, will do cookie cutter programmer moving forward because they will not be able to take the chance that they don't get enough of an audience.  It takes a long time as it is to build up an audience and make a show profitable....many of the best shows, critically acclaimed ones don't even do well in the ratings.

It will be interesting.  Hollywood is very much in bed with politicians, especially the current group.  There's a reason why Google, Apple, etc have failed to break the code with content creators.  Intel is trying now...it's never been about the technology, that can be worked out, it's about the content and the cost.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

You guys continue to miss the point...it isn't technology, it is the RIGHTS to the programming and the cost to produce it. You guys keep focusing on delivery mechanisms and not on content creation, rights fees, licensing fees, etc.  The providers (Comcast, Dish, Directv,etc) are forced by contract to bundle these services.  The folks that demand this are Disney, HBO, Viacom, CBS, NewsCorp, etc, etc.  ESPN, as an example, has absolutely no interest in allowing their channel to be purchased by 25% of the country when they can get 90%..especially when they have purchased sports rights based on the guarantee of 90% of the eyeballs.  Congress knows this as well.  

Google has said they are not going beyond KC.  Costs way too much.  Just as Fios, ATT have stopped expansion.  Costs way too much.

On the generational gap...yes, we see it but we've always seen it.  Eventually people get into their later 20's, early 30's and make some money and end up getting pay television.  At the end of the day, the average American pays $2.34 a day for, on average, about 164 channels of 24 hour news, sports, entertainment, etc.  You should see what the average American pays per day for mobile phone use, their coffee habit, etc.

You bring up some valid points here. In reality, cable is pretty cheap for the amount of entertainment we get. Hours and hours and hours of entertainment for not a lot of money.

However, we've seen people under 30 abandon land line telephones in mass, and people under 20 might be doing the same with traditional cable.

Chicos, you are correct that it's about licensing and rights, but the distribution model is a big part of that. If Disney can develop a children's show and sell it for $5 for 10 episodes on itunes, do you think that would be worth it? Maybe not for Disney... but you can bet somebody will figure out how to do it.

How long before several shows/mini-series are developed exclusively for a streaming service? Certainly the distribution isn't as wide, but a streaming company might offer a more targeted approach to it's advertisers based upon the consumers previous viewing habits. That can't be tracked on traditional cable/dish without a Nielson box, right?

Right now you have standard television advertising which is essentially like billboards and unsolicited direct mail. The eyeball numbers are great, but it's not particularly targeted or effective. We know roughly who watches what/when, but you could be marketing Miller Lite to a guy whose into homebrewing. Wasted dollars.

If a different distribution model offers less eyeballs, but I can tell you EXACTLY who is watching, then advertisers are going to be interested. This doesn't have value for Pepsi, but it has great value for a more targeted product, like homebrewing equipment.

I'm not talking about 5 years in the future, I'm talking about 15-20 years. The distribution model is changing, and smart marketers will figure out new ways to reach their target.

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

He has a point about a generational gap. I am in the under 25 but out of college crowd and I don't have a single friend who has cable. All of us subscribe to at least one streaming service and then fill in the gaps with DVDs, going to bars for sports, or finding a stream of somthing online.

I'm in the same place. 28. I haven't had cable since I was living with my parents. For me, the value is just too little compared to the cost. I work FT, have a commute, hobbies and a social life. Not worth spending $100++ per month for an entertainment option that doesn't give me much entertainment. Especially not when my internet and phone bills already combine for over $100.

Obviously, I'm in the minority nationwide. Is it the trend for more younger people never to sign up? Maybe. If that continues, and people become sick enough of watching television programs with 50% commercials, etc., the market is going to demand reform or simply give up on responding to consumer demand that is right now left on the table.

[akmarq]

You guys continue to miss the point...it isn't technology, it is the RIGHTS to the programming and the cost to produce it. You guys keep focusing on delivery mechanisms and not on content creation, rights fees, licensing fees, etc.  The providers (Comcast, Dish, Directv,etc) are forced by contract to bundle these services.  The folks that demand this are Disney, HBO, Viacom, CBS, NewsCorp, etc, etc.  ESPN, as an example, has absolutely no interest in allowing their channel to be purchased by 25% of the country when they can get 90%..especially when they have purchased sports rights based on the guarantee of 90% of the eyeballs.  Congress knows this as well. 

Google has said they are not going beyond KC.  Costs way too much.  Just as Fios, ATT have stopped expansion.  Costs way too much.

On the generational gap...yes, we see it but we've always seen it.  Eventually people get into their later 20's, early 30's and make some money and end up getting pay television.  At the end of the day, the average American pays $2.34 a day for, on average, about 164 channels of 24 hour news, sports, entertainment, etc.  You should see what the average American pays per day for mobile phone use, their coffee habit, etc.

I see your point about rights, but when the demand drys up, it's sort of irrelavent. My generation stops buying cable so there is less money to produce shows. I get that. But then you seem to be saying that cable will just pull content until we come storming back? What market has worked that way historically? (Avoiding nerdy talk of market asymmetry right now). What seems more likely is that people turn from cable so there is less money for content. That pushes cable companies to find new ways to court customers via new packages or delivery.

Maybe I was unclear about cable companies 'dying.' I don' think they will. I do think that market forces will force them to change their model and evolve. The ones who see this will be in the best position to thrive. Like your article said, it's not the same as music, but it's not completely different either (notice that movies and video games are also going this route).

[akmarq]

Google has said they are not going beyond KC.  Costs way too much.  Just as Fios, ATT have stopped expansion.  Costs way too much.

Eric Schmidt also seems to disagre with you as of 12.12.12
http://www.wired.com/business/2012/12/google-fiber-not-just-kansas-city/