Apple TV returns in a convenient "fun size."

When Steve Jobs throws a stone in a pond, the ripples are felt by just about everyone.  One day before the unveiling of a new, slimmed-down version of Apple TV, the rest of the Internet TV industry reacted.  From some came price cuts, for others a defense of their business model relying on higher-priced boxes.

First to Apple.  Yesterday, Apple’s Steve Jobs unveiled the latest version of Apple TV, a product Apple has ignored for years.  Jobs once dismissed the set top box as an afterthought intended for “hobbyists.”  Considering the product’s enormous number of limitations, he may have been right.

The latest version of Apple TV bears little physical resemblance to the original, except for the square shape.  What used to look a lot more like a Mac Mini now looks like an oversized A/B switch.  The unit’s mini-me size comes with a mini-me price — $99.  For that, Apple dispensed with the hard drive and turned TV watching into a streaming-only affair.  HDMI remains the preferred method to connect with your television — component video connections are gone on the new version.  Optical-digital output is included for audio.  The new version of Apple TV also loses the coffee-warming capabilities of the original, which routinely heated up to 111 degrees.

For Netflix fans, Apple includes support for Netflix video streaming, which is the most welcome change from the dreary everything-iTunes/YouTube limitation that handcuffed the original.

The new Apple TV continues to have plenty of limitations however.  There is no Gigabit Ethernet connectivity, there’s no support for 1080p, the micro-USB port is locked down preventing native support of external hard drives, and you are still stuck using iTunes for much of Apple TV’s functionality.

Apple’s control-freak mentality also remains on full display, banning you from watching Hulu or watching shows from most of Apple’s competition (Amazon, network TV websites, overseas TV streaming sites, etc.)  No audio streaming from sites like Pandora is allowed, either.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Coverage of Apple TV 9-1-10.flv[/flv]

Bloomberg News delivered extensive coverage of Apple’s latest product announcements, with many taking a positive tone about their impact.  Several reports are included covering every angle.  (20 minutes)

Boxee, built by D-Link

Current Apple TV owners cannot benefit from the software upgrades that are a part of the new Apple TV.  The two products are not compatible.  That probably won’t bother many current Apple TV owners who long abandoned Apple’s awful software, jailbreaking their units and installing XBMC, Boxee, or atvusb-creator.  All of these remain superior even to Apple TV’s newest software because they offer owners the opportunity to stream virtually any content from any source.

In fact, Boxee’s developers were relieved after watching Steve Jobs unveil Apple TV 2.0.  Boxee will release its own set top box in November for $199.  They defended Boxee’s $100-more price point on their blog, noting that Boxee will offer a completely open viewing experience, and delivers a more compelling set of features than Apple TV will offer:

We think people want to be able to watch anything that they can watch on their computer, only on their big screen TV.  There is an overwhelming consumer expectation that the content we can consume in our cubicles, our dorm rooms, and in our laps should be available in our living rooms, in full 1080p with a gorgeous interface.  It’s a simple premise, but the challenge is to do it in a way that makes sense in that space, so you can put your feet up, grab a remote and start watching. No keyboards, mice, windows or labyrinthine menus. It should be calm and it should be beautiful. And it *must* be open.

We all watched the Apple announcement. We walked away feeling strongly confident about the space it left for Boxee to compete. We have a different view of what users want in their living rooms.  We are taking different paths to get there. The Boxee Box is going to be $100 more expensive than the Apple TV, but will give you the freedom to watch what you want.

Those investing $99 in the new Apple TV might have a shot of getting the best of both worlds.  It’s a safe bet Boxee’s creators will be working on a version of their software to replace what comes with Apple TV, potentially providing a Boxee experience at an Apple TV price.

The Roku set top box

For those counting every penny these days, the arrival of Apple TV’s budget-minded update forced some companies to start cutting prices.  Roku, which has been around since 2008, was the first player to officially support Netflix video streaming.  Today, most Roku owners use their boxes for that purpose, but because Roku is also an open platform, anyone can create “channels” for the box to open up new viewing possibilities.  As a result, Roku has come a long way from its days as the “Netflix Video Player.”

Now it’s $20-30 cheaper, too.

Coinciding with the launch of Apple TV, Roku cut prices on its three boxes:

• The standard-definition Roku SD is now $59.99 (down $20), but currently out of stock.
• The popular Roku HD is $69.99 (down $30).
• The Roku HD-XR, which adds Wireless-N capability and will support 1080p video after a firmware upgrade due later this year is now $99.99 (down $30).

Roku is running a promotion with Netflix that includes 50GB free on MP3tunes.com for a year to stream your iTunes music to your television if you buy any Roku HD player through this promotional link: www.roku.com/GetOne

Of course, still looming in the background is Google TV, due this fall on some new Sony TVs and Blu-ray players and the Dish Network satellite TV service.  Logitech is also bringing out its own standalone set-top box version — the Logitech Revue.

Although pricing for both Google TV and the Logitech Revue have not been announced, analyst Andy Hargreaves of Pacific Crest Securities thinks the Revue will cost between $250 and $300, which he believes is more than consumers would spend. “It’s a cool concept, but a tough sell,” he told USA Today.

Logitech is banking a lot on its new Revue box, as Logitech’s core business selling replacement computer mice and keyboards continues to falter — from $2.3 billion in 2007 to $1.9 billion in 2009.  As consumers replace $1,000 desktops with $400 laptops or web-ready smartphones, many aren’t interested in splurging for top of the line accessories Logitech includes in its product line, and webcams are already built-in to many laptops and phones.

Many more don’t want another box on their TV set.

James McQuivey, an analyst with Forrester Research likes the concept of Google TV, but believes it will succeed best if it’s already built-in to television sets or DVD players.

“It will change TV viewing forever,” he told the newspaper. “[But] you’d have to be a very technically oriented and TV-obsessed person to go through the pain of an additional box.”

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Google TV and Logitech Revue.flv[/flv]

An introduction to Google TV and three amusing ads from Logitech for the Revue: TV Misses You.  (6 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KGPE Frenso KWGN Denver New Apple Products 9-1-10.flv[/flv]

Apple’s other new products, including their iPod line, was covered by KGPE-TV in Fresno and KWGN-TV in Denver.  (5 minutes)

Kent

Suddenlink president and CEO Jerry Kent sends word that the days of cable companies spending capital on system upgrades are basically over.

Interviewed on CNBC, Kent was responding to concerns about the cable industry’s long history of leveraged buyouts — amassing enormous debt to launch buyouts of small and medium sized cable companies as the march towards industry consolidation continues.

Kent’s own cable system — Suddenlink, was built partly on purchased cable systems from Cox and Charter Cable.  In the changing economy, Wall Street now wants to see cable companies with plenty of free cash flow on hand as part of their balance sheets, not just potential revenue growth through increased numbers of households made possible through debt-ridden acquisitions.

Kent sees Suddenlink, and many other cable operators, performing better as they transition away from making investments in system upgrades to accommodate demand.

“I think one of the things people don’t realize [relates to] the question of capital intensity and having to keep spending to keep up with capacity,” Kent said. “Those days are basically over, and you are seeing significant free cash flow generated from the cable operators as our capital expenditures continue to come down.”

Kent told CNBC Suddenlink had the fastest residential Internet service in the country — 107Mbps. (EPB in Chattanooga claims it offers 150Mbps residential service, although we don’t see much about it beyond a June press release on their website.)  Suddenlink’s speeds are one-way only, however.  The upstream speed for that tier of service is considerably slower — 5Mbps.  EPB offers the same upstream and downstream speeds.

Kent appeared on CNBC to discuss the “threat” to cable television company business models by online video.  Kent believes Suddenlink, and the cable industry more generally, is positioned to protect cable-TV profits with the TV Everywhere concept — offer online video of cable programming, but only to authenticated, current cable subscribers.  Those without cable subscriptions can’t watch.

Financial reports submitted by many of the nation’s cable operators confirm Kent’s claim that capital spending is being reduced.  Even among cable systems that claim they need to enact usage caps and other Internet Overcharging schemes to “invest in broadband upgrades,” the financial reports don’t lie — they are not using increased revenue for system upgrades.  They are instead retaining the revenue as free cash – available for other purposes, paying down debt, or returning it to shareholders through dividend payouts.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC Internet v. Cable 8-20-10.flv[/flv]

CNBC interviewed Suddenlink CEO Jerry Kent on how the cable industry intends to cope with invasive online video, threatening to erode cable-TV profits.  (8 minutes)

Pacific Fibre's planned undersea fiber optic cable set to begin service in 2013. (click to enlarge)

Australia and New Zealand remain the two countries most notorious for Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps and speed throttles.  The lack of international broadband capacity is routinely blamed for limiting broadband usage for consumers in both southern Pacific countries, and now a major undersea fiber optic cable project seeks to end those Internet Overcharging schemes once and for all.

Pacific Fibre hates usage caps.  The company, which is one of the partners in a planned 5.12 terabits per second undersea cable connecting the United States with New Zealand and Australia, believes limiting broadband consumption is bad for business — theirs and the digital economies of both nations.  Now the company is reportedly willing to put its money where its mouth is, charging broadband providers a flat rate per customer for unlimited access to its backbone network.

The company believes such pricing will force providers into selling more generous, often unlimited broadband service packages for businesses and consumers.  Providers have routinely blamed insufficient international capacity for restrictive data caps.  But increasing capacity, including Pacific Fibre’s new cable set to begin service in 2013, removes that excuse once and for all.

Co-founder Rod Drury believes there will be so much capacity, if providers continue to engage in Internet Overcharging schemes, most of the newly available bandwidth could actually go unsold.

“Why don’t we flip the model around and go to a per-person charging model and then try to give internet providers as much bandwidth as we possibly can for that?,” Drury told BusinessDay.  “The charges could be segmented by customer type; you could do it for mobile connections, home connections, schools, hospitals and businesses, and set a reasonable price.”

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC Interview With Pacnet CEO June-July 2010.flv[/flv]

CNBC talked with Pacnet CEO Bill Barney, one of the partners in the Pacific Fibre project, about bandwidth needs in Asia and how new undersea fiber cables will meet the growing demands.  (Segment one of the interview was done in June, segment two in July.)  (10 minutes)

Telecommunications Users Association chief executive Ernie Newman said Drury’s idea was long overdue. “The way the world is moving is towards all-you-can-eat-type plans and any move like that has got to be the way of the future.”

But one of Pacific Fibre’s competitors, Southern Cross, which currently provides undersea fiber connections for South Pacific Internet Service Providers, said he wasn’t sure Drury’s idea would work.

Southern Cross marketing director Ross Pfeffer said broadband providers haven’t been justified limiting broadband usage for some time, as newly available capacity has already helped ease the bandwidth crunch.  Instead, critics contend existing providers don’t want to give up the massive profits they are earning limiting usage, maximizing revenue from users who think twice before using high bandwidth services, thus reducing required investments in network upgrades.

“New Zealand internet providers [are] using data caps to segment the retail market and maximize their own revenues,” Pfeffer noted.

Both Australia and New Zealand are embarked on National Broadband Plans to take back some control of their broadband futures from private providers many accuse of monopolizing an increasingly important part of both countries’ digital economies.

Drury’s project, and others like it, may become important components of newly constructed national fiber-to-the-home projects proposed in Australia, and dramatically improved service in New Zealand.

[flv width=”480″ height=”292″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Underwater cable laying 1936.flv[/flv]

The history of deploying underseas cables is a fascinating one.  Check out this 1936 documentary showing how AT&T made undersea phone cables to connect the San Francisco Bay area.  Back then, companies didn’t use rubber or plastic cable jackets to keep the water out.  They used jute fiber and paper!  Some other companies used gutta percha, which is today best known for root canal fillings, or tar mixtures.  (5 minutes)

[flv width=”484″ height=”292″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/BBC Cable Under the Sea.flv[/flv]

Before there was telephone service, the challenges of connecting the far flung components of the British Empire were met by underseas telegraph cables beginning in the 1870s.  A fascinating BBC documentary visited Porthcurno, located at the tip of Cornwall, England, where 14 undersea telegraph cables stretched from a single beach to points all around the globe. Then something called “wireless” arrived and threatened to ruin everything.  (8 minutes)

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Fiber Optic Cable.flv[/flv]

But what exactly is “fiber optic cable” and how is it made?  More importantly, how do they store thousands of miles of fiber optic cable on a single ship, ready to drop to the bottom of the ocean?  The answers to both are here.  (12 minutes)

Amazon Prime members may get access as part of their $79 annual membership fee.

Amazon.com is talking to TV show distributors and media companies about launching a new online streaming service comparable to Netflix to provide online television programming, according to sources familiar with the talks.

Amazon already offers $1.99 online access to individual shows and movies, but the new service would charge a flat fee for unlimited access.

Various news reports indicate Amazon has approached NBC/Universal Studios, Time Warner, and CBS/Viacom, among others.

The Wall Street Journal obtained access to one proposal that would bundle the yet-unnamed service with its existing Amazon Prime service, which charges frequent Amazon shoppers $79 a year to get two-day “free shipping upgrades.”

Would Amazon.com have access to current hit shows or find themselves restricted to showing 1970s Wonder Woman reruns?

Analysts say Amazon Prime’s steep annual fee has only attracted a small percentage of Amazon customers who perceive value from it, but including unlimited TV programming would give Amazon a built-in subscriber base and potentially attract new interest among current Amazon customers who want something more than two-day shipping for $79 a year.

Large web players are jockeying for video programming, seen as the next big thing as broadband becomes commonplace in most American homes.  It’s already a huge revenue generator.  Americans spent $340 million dollars watching TV online and another $300 million for online movies in 2009, according to Adams Media Research.

Those familiar with Amazon’s proposed service say the service is likely to find studios amenable to licensing older TV shows and second-run content, similar to what Netflix streams today, but will likely find strong resistance to licensing first-run, current network shows.  Most TV networks and major cable networks reserve those for services like Hulu and the cable industry’s TV Everywhere, which they own and control.

Some studios are concerned that licensing reruns of current shows might be eating into their lucrative deals with cable networks, which license network TV programming as part of cable programming lineups.  But many studios also recognize that viewers blockaded from access will simply pirate the shows online, downloading them from newsgroups, commercial file storage networks, or peer-to-peer services.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Sony to Expand Service Amazon May Start Online Video 9-1-10.flv[/flv]

Bloomberg News covered Amazon’s video service in this morning’s Business Briefs, which also gave word Sony was dramatically expanding video options on its Playstation console and Motorola was putting $3.5 billion in cash into its mobile phone and set-top box unit destined to be spun-off in 2011.  (1 minute)

Time Warner Cable subscribers are at reduced risk of losing access to Disney owned channels like ESPN, Disney and local television stations in several major cities now that the two companies are close to an agreement.  But, as usual, regardless of whether Time Warner Cable whittles down Disney’s demands or Disney secures dramatically higher pricing for its cable channels, one thing is certain: Time Warner Cable subscribers will ultimately lose, facing higher cable bills in 2011.

AT&T U-verse customers: your nail-biting has just begun, as AT&T sends home postcards announcing the potential loss of the Hallmark Channel and its companion the Hallmark Movie Channel.  AT&T’s contract expired at 12:01 AM this morning, but Hallmark said it was willing to keep the signals running on U-verse while negotiations continued.

Ultimately, it’s all about who gets a bigger piece of your money.  Be it local broadcasters, cable networks, or programming conglomerates who can darken a dozen channels on your basic cable lineup, all say the cable industry is enriching itself on subscriber fees and all these networks are asking for is a bigger share of the pie.  The cable industry says cable programming fees are the most significant part of rate increases, as the industry is unwilling to absorb most of the programming rate hikes.  Cable wants to continue its healthy returns, so programming rate hikes come out of your pocket, not theirs.

Sometimes the amounts involved come down to pocket change, other times several dollars a month can be involved.

For example, Disney-owned ESPN is typically the most expensive basic cable channels in the lineup.

SNL Kagan, a cable research firm, estimates Disney charges Time Warner $4.08 a month per subscriber to carry ESPN.  The costs are high because ESPN competes with major broadcast networks to secure increasingly expensive television rights to major sporting events.  ESPN’s early days were filled with coverage of volleyball, log-rolling, and billiard sports.  The rights to air these events were affordable.  But with the benefit of increased programming fees, the cable network successfully bid for professional football and other popular sports.  The more money ESPN charges, the more money they can use in bidding wars to secure television rights.

With most cable networks charging closer to 20 cents a month per subscriber, what ESPN charges (and demands) for contract renewals can, all by itself, trigger rate increases.

AT&T and Hallmark are currently arguing over an increase in subscriber fees that currently run around just four cents per month per subscriber.  AT&T argues it doesn’t want to pay the percentage increase Hallmark is demanding, even if it amounts to pennies per month.

ESPN’s rate increase demands often exceed 50 cents, if not higher.

This year a new issue enters the debate — online video programming fees. Disney wants to generate income from a whole new tier of sports programming – that streamed online to Time Warner Cable customers.  The sticking point in Time Warner Cable and Disney’s negotiations seems to hinge on the cable company ponying up for ESPN3, an online network.  The concept of cable operators paying programming fees for online content is highly controversial, especially when broadband customers could face ever-increasing broadband bills blamed on the same “increased programming costs” that have taken basic cable packages from under $20 a month in the 1980s to over $60 a month today.

ESPN3 reportedly wants 10 cents a month from every Time Warner Cable broadband customer, regardless if they have the slightest interest in watching ESPN3.  Some in the cable industry fear once this precedent is set, other cable programmers with online shows could start demanding payments for those as well.

While Time Warner Cable continues to resist, other major cable companies like Comcast Corp., Cox Communications Inc., Charter Communications and phone companies AT&T, Frontier, and Verizon Communications have ESPN3.com agreements with Disney.  Nearly all have also boosted their broadband prices for consumers as well.

Despite assurances from Time Warner Cable’s Roll Over or Get Tough website, the cable industry typically caves in on programming fee increases, often agreeing to split the difference.  Since they simply pass those increases along to consumers, it doesn’t impact their bottom line until customers start canceling cable service.

Subscribers on Time Warner Cable’s blog keep coming up with an innovative idea to solve these problems — allow subscribers to pick and choose (and pay for) only the channels they want to receive.  That novel a-la-carte concept invokes fear in the cable industry like garlic repels vampires.

In the end, even if Disney and Time Warner Cable can’t reach an agreement, should screens darken September 2nd, watch in amazement as a deal is achieved hours after the disruption in programming begins.  Then, just a few months later, the accompanying rate hike will surely follow.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WESH Orlando FL Will Bright House Customers Lose ESPN 8-26-10.flv[/flv]

WESH-TV in Orlando notes Bright House cable customers are also potentially affected because Time Warner Cable negotiates on behalf of that cable company, which has a major presence in central Florida.  (1 minute)