After weeks of delays, Time Warner Cable says it will finally open access to ESPN’s multi-channel streaming service Monday, Oct. 25th.  The service will be available to Time Warner Cable subscribers, and is free of charge.

ESPN’s streaming service was included in a deal signed in early September between the cable company and Disney-ABC, which owns the sports network.

Time Warner Cable has been working with ESPN’s website technical staff to build and test the online verification system that is the foundation of Time Warner Cable’s implementation of TV Everywhere.  The cable company plans to offer a library of on-demand video and live streams of many cable channels free of charge, but only to authenticated, current customers.

It is all part of an effort by the cable industry to stop cable customers from canceling their cable-TV subscriptions.  An increasing amount of online content produced by cable networks is expected to eventually be placed behind the TV Everywhere system.  Existing cable subscribers will get access to streamed live channels and on demand programming for free, but non-subscribers will be locked out.  Cable networks can decide how much of their programming will be a part of the project, but cable industry insiders predict there will be increasing pressure on them to keep most of their shows off the open Internet.

While the channels will be free-to-stream for subscribers now, several cable networks are exploring whether to charge cable companies extra programming fees for online viewing rights.  If that becomes popular, online viewing options may eventually carry monthly fees of their own.

ESPN says most of its online streaming will contain no advertising until the network builds enough viewers to justify selling ads targeting online audiences.

Verizon Inc. reached a similar agreement with Disney in October for its FiOS TV service. The originally planned launch date for Verizon customers was Jan. 18th, but if authentication tests with Time Warner Cable are successful, FiOS customers may get access much sooner.

Charter Cable customers are upset over new surcharges of a dollar or more on their monthly cable bills to pay for broadcast/over-the-air stations they can receive for free.  Even worse, Charter already charges its basic customers in areas like upstate South Carolina up to $25 a month for basic cable, which includes local channels and a handful of cable networks.

Now customers like Cathy Bader want to know why Charter needs a dollar surcharge on a $25 cable package when it only costs Charter a dollar for the local channels she wants to watch.

Those in other parts of the state pay as low as one-third that price for the same local channels.

“If you’re only paying $1.12 to rebroadcast the same channels that you can get with an antenna or on basic elsewhere [in the state] for $14 dollars, well, why don’t [they] take it down to $14 for basic cable,” Bader asked Diane Lee, a consumer reporter for WSPA-TV in Spartanburg.  “Why gouge the customers when you are the only game in town for most of us.”

Now that Bader has learned the exorbitant markup rate on basic, she wants to know how much Charter pays to re-transmit other channels, too.  She’s certain it is much less than the $111 she pays every month for cable service.

Time Warner Cable, in comparison, charges between $8-13 per month for the same broadcast networks in other parts of the state.  A good antenna will cut that bill to zero.

Charter Cable handed the TV station a written response:

“The pricing for our basic level of service incorporates the overall operating costs of providing video services to our customers.  Charter’s price for basic service in the upstate area is comparable to prices charged by certain other video providers, including basic cable service in the Atlanta area, which is approximately $23 a month.”

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/WSPA Spartanburg Charter Surcharge 10-5-10.flv[/flv]

WSPA-TV in Spartanburg ran this report about Charter’s high basic cable rates.  (2 minutes)

Sezmi set top DVR box, antenna, and remote control

While most of the pay television industry forces huge basic cable packages on subscribers containing dozens of channels never watched, an innovative California company thinks it has the perfect solution for those who want to cut cable’s cord but still keep some of their favorite cable channels.

Sezmi combines a super-sized 1 terabyte DVR set-top box ($149.99) with a digital broadcast receiver to deliver every local television signals, 23 popular cable channels, on-demand movies, video podcasts, and YouTube content for $19.99 per month.  Don’t care about the cable channels or live outside of Los Angeles?  The price drops to $4.99 per month.

Sezmi’s inventors believe the marketplace is ripe for a compromise between paying enormous cable bills or simply going without popular cable series and 24/7 news.

Besides, Sezmi’s founders argue, with free digital television stations increasing the amount of programming they offer and Americans wanting to watch more of their favorite shows on-demand, Sezmi’s super-sized DVR may provide enough live and recorded programs to more than satisfy average viewers.  If not, a budget-priced package of two dozen popular cable channels could give people enough courage to cut cable’s cord forever.

At its core, Sezmi’s set top box offers an enormous capacity hard drive that can store up to 1400 hours of SD (standard definition) and 340 hours of HD (high definition) programming.  It can also record one channel while watching another, and its software gives each member of a viewing family their own personal menu to access, record, and view the programming they want.

[flv width=”446″ height=”270″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Sezmi All-In-One Personal TV Service.mp4[/flv]

A promotional reel introducing shoppers to Sezmi and its services.  (3 minutes)

Sezmi’s founders future-proofed their technology to be immune from broadband providers with Internet Overcharging schemes in mind.  Unlike other cord-cutting alternative set top technology that relies on broadband to access programming, Sezmi receives its live TV and cable network programming entirely over the air.  That keeps your local cable or phone company from stopping all the fun by imposing broadband usage limitations or charging steep penalties for watching too much of a competitor’s service.

Sezmi’s unique way of bypassing the local broadband provider is both innovative and challenging at the same time.  In the Los Angeles market, currently the only city where Sezmi provides cable networks, it leases leftover capacity from local stations to transmit the encrypted cable networks over the air to Sezmi receivers.  As long as you get a signal from a local station, the cable signals come along for the ride.

While that can work in Los Angeles, which has at least 26 full powered broadcast stations in the market from whom it can potentially lease capacity, most American cities have fewer than eight full power local channels.  If those stations can’t or won’t lease out their extra bandwidth, the cable programming service simply won’t work.

Part of the original business plan for Sezmi was to provide the set top box as a solution for phone companies like Frontier and other independents who want to deliver a video package without improving their current copper-based networks to deliver it.  Because the box will work reasonably well with a broadband connection of 3.1Mbps or higher, companies selling DSL broadband packages to customers could use Sezmi to deliver video content to subscribers.  In rural areas, relying on broadband delivery may prove more effective than over-the-air reception, and since the provider offers the service themselves, there is little chance they’d limit their own customers’ use of Sezmi.

Now Sezmi is directly being sold to consumers on Amazon.com and in Best Buy stores in the 35 U.S. cities Sezmi serves.

Sezmi's cable channel lineup is currently only available in Los Angeles.

Buyers are pre-qualified before purchase to determine if they’ll be able to receive a suitable broadcast TV signal required for Sezmi to operate.

A lengthy beta test in Los Angeles revealed many consumers loved the concept of Sezmi, but definitely discovered some flaws:

• There is no wireless connection supported for broadband.  You must use a supplied Ethernet cable to connect to a router;
• The remote control and its functionality was frequently reviewed as unintuitive and slow to respond to commands;
• Cable networks arrived only in standard definition video;
• Reception varied considerably depending on where one lives in relation to local broadcast transmitters.  Where TV stations use different transmitting locations, reception problems for one or more stations can be an issue unless you regularly reposition the antenna;
• Sezmi’s antenna module looks like a small bookshelf speaker and was more obtrusive than many thought necessary;
• Sezmi’s online viewing options are limited to YouTube and Sezmi-partnered content.  No Hulu or Netflix access is supported.
• Some reviewers felt charging $5 a month for a Sezmi package that only included free, over the air broadcast stations was unjustified when they also had to purchase the required set top box.  Many of these comments came when the box was priced at $299, however.  Sezmi has reduced the price of the set top box by half, so it’s likely the monthly fee includes some hardware cost recovery;
• The cable networks chosen do not include a lot of sports, although the company is currently negotiating with ESPN;
• Love it or hate it, one of America’s favorite cable channels – Fox News, is not included in the lineup although CNN and MSNBC are.  Their asking price may have been too high.

Sezmi’s co-founder probably expects that detailed level of critique considering the company’s business plan targets technology-minded “early adopters” who are well versed on technology and very opinionated about how it works.  They also feature prominently in the group of consumers that are now spending less time watching live television and less-willing to pay the asking price for it.

“The Sezmi offering is geared toward the next wave of consumers who want a very high-quality experience and the latest technology features, but are not willing to overpay for that,” said Phil Wiser, co-founder and president. “We’ve limited ourselves to really focus on that segment who are value-oriented and tech-oriented.”

Those who are value-oriented have responded positively to Sezmi.  Stop the Cap! reader John in Sherman Oaks, Calif., who notified us about Sezmi’s local media blitz says it’s exactly what he was looking for, and he’s enjoying some shows he missed from USA, TNT and Discovery.  But his wife misses her favorite HGTV and Food Network shows, which Sezmi doesn’t carry.

“I told cable to take a hike,” he writes. “I only watch perhaps a dozen channels and Sezmi has most of them covered for about 1/3rd of the cost the cable company charges, not including the fees, taxes, and renting cable’s set top boxes.”

John adds 24/7 access to live news programming was the one thing that held him back from dropping cable before Sezmi arrived.

Sezmi's Los Angeles Coverage Map (click to enlarge)

“I wasn’t going to give up CNN and MSNBC for breaking news,” he said.

Wiser’s comments to the San Francisco Chronicle seem to match John’s perceptions about the service.

“The key thing we realized with Sezmi is that consumers would not be ready to drop a paid TV experience purely for Internet offerings,” he said. “You need a bridge that includes a traditional cable experience with a more on-demand interactivity.”

Although John says he has few problems getting good broadcast signals from Mt. Wilson, where most Los Angeles-area broadcasters maintain their transmitters, some  residents further east in Riverside say their experiences were considerably worse.

“If you walked in front of the antenna, reception would drop out,” wrote one reviewer.  “A rooftop antenna is really a smart idea if you need reliable reception to make sure your shows get recorded,” wrote another.

The potential impact Sezmi could have on cable and phone company pay television packages varies depending on which analyst you choose.

Mike Jude, with Frost & Sullivan, told the Chronicle devices like Sezmi will probably remain niche products that will have trouble attracting interest from traditional cable subscribers.

But Gerry Kaufhold, an analyst at In-Stat, said Sezmi’s innovative approach could find a significant audience especially with more casual TV viewers. He said 15 percent of viewers don’t pay for TV while 35 to 40 percent of cable users pay about $40 for basic cable. Both could find a lot of utility in a product like Sezmi, he said.

“Anyone that gets a big digital cable (package) is unlikely to leave, but people who get basic cable may be willing to make that jump and cut some 20 bucks off their bill,” Kaufhold said. “They can also get people who don’t pay for TV to try it.”

With a Yankee Group study looming that estimates one in eight Americans will disconnect or downgrade their paid TV services by April, devices like Sezmi could threaten industry profits even sooner than some analysts think.

Service Coverage – Click links for respective channel lineups

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Sezmi Services Described.flv[/flv]

Sezmi Explained: This series of videos walks you through all of Sezmi’s features and services.  (12 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Sezmi Setup.flv[/flv]

Sezmi’s setup is explained in this video, guiding you through the process of hooking up the equipment.  (10 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)